"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."

SSPX EXCOMMUNICATIONS: Still Not Protestant!
Ready to Harvest | 2 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BThpQ9U7gIE

"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."

Thank you. Me too.

Swedes have sometimes a hard time to grasp this. In 1993, after switching to SSPX, former fellow Novus Ordo Catholics branded me a Protestant.

That absolutely didn't mean I'd have been at home with Protestants.

Currently I'm Conclavist. After Lefebvre and Castro-Mayer, two bishops consecrated before the Council, consecrated Fellay and Galareta with two more, one ex-Seminarian of them concluded that "emergency bending of rules" is only licit if one does so the necessary extent to actually finish the emergency.

And to David Allen Bawden, that meant, means still, I suppose, get a real Pope one can in good conscience obey.

6 persons showed up for an emergency election ("emergency conclave" is a misnomer since it wasn't an actual conclave in the usual procedure), 5 against himself voted for him.

So, more or less SSPX-er about half of my life and the last 12 years a Conclavist, no, I'm not a Protestant.

7:36 Pope Michael I, his successor Michael II, have an answer.

Pope-sifting is in practise denying the universal and direct jurisdiction of the Pope.

I would say it is licit momentarily to oppose a Pope, while not yet considering him a non-Pope, if one finds him in doctrinal error. This happened against Pope John XXII, who had denied the Beatific Vision prior to the Last Judgement, ie he was proposing Soul Sleep. He was then opposed by one, didn't repeat that position, promised to study, did study and on his death bed came out against Soul Sleep and for Saints who are canonised having the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision from the moment they die (except one saint who asked to spend time in Purgatory, just for solidarity).

That's a far cry from opposing the same Pope time after time on the same issue and continuing that with the next Pope. John XXII made a mistake. One cannot say he chose error. John Paul II cannot be said to have made a mistake in CCC § 283, if he continued to uphold that "Catechism" unaltered to his death and Benedict XVI and Francis did so. If they were Popes, I'm wrong. If I'm right, they were not Popes. Resisting can't become pope-sifting.

8:04 Dito Council-Sifting.

There have been 20 ecumenical Councils.

8:17 New Catechism ... "infected with modernist errors" ... in CCC § 283, more like directly professing one, that modern science trumps the obvious sense of the text in Genesis 1 through 11. Especially as it is now on more issues than how much time passed before Adam was created.

Pose Adam in the timeline, and admit he's the first human with a soul created in God's image, you have dehumanised loads of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, even inhabitants of Çatal Höyyük, as well as implied most of today's peoples started as non-human and got human admixture, at best.

Admit he's the first human, but reframe the timeline, like WLC, you have made Genesis 3 impossible to know historically, you can't even mend that by saying it was prophecy, since prophecy couldn't have got Genesis 5 and 11 wrong, and you have made the waiting time for the woman and her seed unendurably long.

Pose him in the timeline, pretend he's the first ... sth other than actual first human ... and you have redefined original sin.

Pose Adam in the timeline, admit he's the first human, and admit all human skeleta dated to before him are misdated, you have contradicted § 283 and being Day Ager or Gap Theorist won't fix that.

10:55 Origen was, as far as I know, not excommunicated.

Origenism was condemned by a bishops' vote in Ecumenical council V. Origen was already dead and couldn't be excommunicated. As I recall Newman, there is some doubt whether the Pope confirmed the bishops' vote or just condemned the Three Chapters of Ibas. Nevertheless, Origenism would still be condemned by the constant acceptance in the ordinary magisterium after Ecumenical council V, that being ... Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD.

Recency of All Protestant / Anabaptist Type Churches

Comment on the title of following video, they should be bothered. I'll be here responding to the first half:

Why Do Protestants Seem So Unbothered By Their Own Recency?
Ready to Harvest | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVYtTxmcWk

2:26 The arguments can be reduced to three. One of which is a conclusion of the other two:

1) The Church was founded by Jesus
2) It cannot go out of existence.
3) Therefore any newer Church cannot be the Church.

You don't need to have between 1 and 2 another "2" of "is the Catholic Church" because, when you take away "newcomers" (obvious such) as well as extinct ones (see point 2) you are only left with a handfull of alternatives. From there on you can narrow it down between Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Etchmiadzin and Qudshanis / exile in Chicago.

"Second, the church Christ founded was the Catholic Church. Protestants agree. They separate out the Catholic Church from what they call the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just means the universal church. And so, they would say that Jesus founded this church, which is made up of all people who are truly believers in Christ and contains all congregations where the gospel is truly preached."

That in itself is an argument for leaving out your "2", namely that the Protestants redefine "Catholic" and dilute definitions to include words like "truly" ... you recall how the Georgia Guidestones were again and again harping on governments to be "wise" but left no concrete suggestions of what this meant, except a few hugely bad ones, like one world government and reduced / controlled world population?

This kind of definition is parallel to defining Ancient Israel so as to include Righteous Gentiles with no Abrahamic ancestry and no direct contact, let alone adoption or citizenship, into the Holy Land's Holy People.

Jesus defined the Church as being Apostolic "you" in Mt 28:20 isn't adressed to believers indistinctly, but to the Eleven, and as having a governance (Mt 18:27), and as being visible (Mt 5:14—15, again, this is adressed to the disciples in "you", not to those hearing the "for all" sermon in Luke). No wonder the Protestant Holzmann wanted to argue Marcan priority so as to argue "later accretions" in Matthew!

"Many Protestants would say that the institution of today's Roman Catholic Church came into existence slowly sometime after the time of Christ and that Peter wasn't really the first pope and such."

Insofar as they argue Catholics are non-Christians, this involves the paradox of an imperceptibly slow apostasy.

Insofar as they argue Catholics are Christians, this leaves the question, why leave it? If you can be saved, no problem whatsoever, in an already existing community, why leave it?

"Most Protestants agree and would say that there will always be true believers somewhere and so the church will always continue too."

Given apostolicity and visibility of the Church, "true believers somewhere" cannot be widely different communities with no mutual contact, like Paulicians and if Waldensians went back to Claudius of Turin, as some claim.

Church plants Church. Non-Church doesn't plant Church.

"Fourth, any new church other than this original church that arrives later is not the church that Christ founded. Protestants accept this too. A particular denomination can come along later because it's not a new church per se. It's part of that same church that Christ established, the universal church."

It isn't if (at its founding) breaking away from what it calls other parts.

It also isn't if at the moment of founding they considered there were no other parts left to attach themselves to.

Calvin failed to attach to Cyril Lukaris. Lutherans didn't even try.

It cannot be a part of the Church if they admit so and so are fully parts of the Church and still we sever communion. It also cannot be a part of a Church that never goes out of existence if at the moment of founding there were, on their view no other parts to attach to.

Note, a Church can be "born orphan" and attach later, like the Korean Catholics did, baptising each other and waiting for a bishop. But it cannot say "OK, there actually is no one else to attach to, other than very loosely to other newcomers" because that implies a de facto admission of their "ideal Church" having gone out of existence.

"And it's because they view the universal church or Catholic Church as not belonging to any institution"

But, since the original Church had visibility and governance, it was precisely an institution.

Protestant views on this are, sorry, a mental breakdown.

"According to this Protestant idea, when a new denomination begins, for example, Lutheranism, it is simply a reformation of what already exists. It's still the same universal church. When a new institution is founded, these institutions are incidental, not essential."

The pretense that Lutheran Christianity already existed is, historically, bunk.

Luther's best try was to make a wedge between Hussites willing to reunite and Catholics. But Hussites only take you from early 1500's to late 1300's. This move is also partially responsible for both the Thirty Years' War and National Socialism. Czech National Socialism harkened back to Hussites, German National Socialism started in 1905 as a reaction and mostly copy of it (adding racial delusions). "How great thou art" was written by a man who later came to side with National Socialist Germany, and "Horst-Wessel-Lied" was written by the son of a Lutheran clergyman.

Many who show Hitler together with "Catholic clergy" will miss that only Schachleiter was there on the Catholic side and that a Lutheran Diaconess is not a Catholic nun, and a Reichsbischoff is a bishop of the Evangelische Kirche, while the Landesbischoff of Saxony was a direct successor of Luther.

"But for these Protestants, there's nothing that says institutions have to be the same. And if an institution seems to have lost its way and is resistant to reform, then it can be abandoned and a new institution can replace it."

Only already existing parts of it, institutional ones, can replace it.

The salient point about conclavism is, a) against a 17th C. commenter on Cum ex apostolatus, for how long can one discover the elected pope was actually heretic? and b) how far down below cardinals can the duty and right to elect a new pope devolve if cardinals are unavailable as all killed, all captive or all apostates?

If the answer is "even ten years later" and "even down to laymen", than David Bawden saved papacy on the juridical side in 1990. People had been calling out Vatican II popes since Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga who died already in 1976. 18 years after the purported "election" of Roncalli.

As to the sacramental side, he was consecrated and ordained, in lineages of bishops already existing and reconciled to his jurisdiction, in 2011. His successor in 2023 was elected already a bishop.

That's a very far cry from saying "the institutional church became unsound a few centuries after the apostles, we must now reform that 1000 years later" ...

Qua or Quia, Just One Letter ...

Conservative Church Monikers Honestly Explained
Ready to Harvest | 15 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD2Rr8kw5No

some 3:25 subscribe to the confessions because 3:27 they agree with the Bible while others 3:29 subscribe to the confessions insofar 3:32 as they agree with the Bible

As an ex-Lutheran, I find this funny.

I heard about this controversy dating back to the 17th. C only after I actually converted to Catholicism.

If you subscribe to the Confession because it agrees with the Bible, how is that not ecclesial infallibility?

If you subscribe to the Confession insofar as it agrees with the Bible, how is the Bible totally perspicuous?

Metal Auditor

@Metal_Auditor

Confessionalism isn’t ecclesiastical infallibility because scriptures are still the basis and judge of the confession. A confession is just a church saying, “here is a summary of the important teachings of scripture as we understand them.” It’s the same with any extra-biblical theology text. If I read a theology book and say, “I believe this is an accurate interpretation of scripture,” I am affirming the book but not suggesting that its author is an infallible ecclesiastical authority.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Metal_Auditor You know what?

I don't think you ever were a Lutheran and knew "because it agrees with Scripture" from the inside.

You make it clear that you are just personally ascribing to x, y and z insofar as they agree with Scripture and until you find out otherwise. Or as long as you don't find out otherwise.

But that is a position that doesn't really make the case for Biblical clarity.

Many, I think most, 17th C. Lutherans thought the Bible crystal clear, and that it clearly upheld the Formulas of Lutheran Confession, to a T, and condemned both Catholicism and Calvinism. Both denied transsubstantiation and affirmed Real Presence of the Body of Christ Itself, not just Its spiritual effects or the "Church is the body of Christ" ...

I also think the Bible is crystal clear in affirming the Real Presence, but very far from denying Transsubstantiation, and actually also affirms the Sacrifice of the Mass. That makes the Infallible Magisterium of Trent possible. Unless you set out to ignore how the Church has so far interpreted the Bible, it generally is very clear.

[The video also featured several types of Traditionalist Catholic, so I added]

9:30 Conclavist here.

There have been valid Popes after 1958, beginning again with the emergency conclave of 1990, electing Pope Michael I.

I'm under Pope Michael II.

While Campbellites are Young Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists Can Also be Catholic (and Should)

At least, Campbellites are not Calvinists!

What is the Church of Christ?
11 Sept. 2022 | Ready to Harvest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bg6fKBaJlM

1:35 What a misreading of Acts 2:47!

The verse says:

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

It is clear from the context, continued into the first half of the verse, that the thing they quote is referring to an outer, visible adhesion to the Church that preached on Pentecost, and that this outer visible adhesion was interpreted as God adding the people to the Church that God intended to save back then.

3:09 On the seventh sacrament, namely marriage, St. Paul calls it "mega musterion, to esti en Xristô" (need to look up so my Greek is not too rusty along with my memory).

And what is the standard Greek word for sacrament, used all over the Orthodox Church? Musterion. The same word used by St. Paul. However, this means that the standard Latin for the word musterion is ... sacramentum.

Indeed, the Vulgate for Ephesians 5:32 uses precisely sacramentum, as this is the standard Latin translation about the Christian musteria.

3:56 "Baptism is simply a condition of God's grace, not a sacramental work that merits salvation"

Catholic theology doesn't state that sacraments "merit" salvation, that Christ did for us on the Cross.

Catholic theology states that sacraments give us the graces of salvation, they are the channel from Calvary to me. Not as a juridic condition, but as the actual purveyance, when the grace of God physically transforms the soul from lost to holy or from less holy to more holy.

WPBCOC is basically attacking a strawman.

However, it is a meritorious work to receive the sacraments well - here I distinguish : in the case of someone not saved at all, not in the state of grace before the very moment of the sacrament, the sacrament is quasi gratuitously given as a big addition to the merits that will accrue from thence on. But in the case of someone who was already in the state of grace, the longing for the sacrament had saved him before the actual reception, and in that case, the actual reception can be a meritorious act.

Giving a sacrement, like baptising or giving absolution, usually implies you are already in a state of grace as a priest or in the case of baptism deacon, and if so, giving someone else the means for his salvation actually is a meritorious work of the servant of the sacrament. However, should he be in a state of mortal sin, it doesn't cleanse him, but also doesn't make the sacrament invalid, the sacrament still saves as a work of the Church.

4:45 I looked up Col. 2:11 - 13, and while I am tired, I can see no objection against Baptism sometimes adding the Baptismal character to a state of grace already existing, as God forgave the man while he was longing for an as yet upcoming baptism.

In such a case, God knows He forgave the man His sins so many days or hours or minutes before Baptism, but as with Absolution, the man knows he is forgiven, when he is baptised.

Btw, good for them they say Baptism actually saves.

5:04 The only thing we learn from Acts 19 in the context is, the Baptism of John is not the sacrament of Baptism.

As a Catholic, I already knew that.

Whether verse 5 means that on Christ's command they were baptised with the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" or whether it means that in the formula itself these words were replaced by "in the name of Jesus" - but only the Apostles had authority to so replace the formula - diverse Catholic authors differ between them. Either way, they certainly did receive sacramental Baptism in this event.

5:28 "early Christian writers understood that it was symbolic"

Oooops, getting ready for a fake quote, a quotemine or a non-quote, we are supposed to believe these Nebraskans really studied the matter ... and they don't even have to show a quote for it.

5:35 Looking up the Haydock comment to Matthew 26:29

// Ver. 29. I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine. In S. Luke, (xxii. 15, 16,) Christ said to his disciples; I earnestly desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer; (or this paschal sacrifice) for I say to you, that, from this time I will not eat thereof, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. These expressions seem to import no more, than that it was the last time he would eat and drink with them in a mortal body. And if, as some expound it, Christ, by the generation of the vine, understood the consecrated cup of his blood, he might call it wine, or the fruit of the vine; because he gave them his blood under the appearance of wine; as S. Paul calls the body of Christ bread, because given under the appearance of bread. 1 Cor. xi. 26. Wi. //

Wi. = Bishop Witham, on whom wiki:

// George Witham (16 May 1655 – 16 April 1725) was an English Roman Catholic bishop who served as the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District, and, later, as the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District. //

Before that, to verse 26, the Haydock Comment has a review of first, second, third, fourth and fifth century authors, starding with St. Ignatius of Antioch.

// S. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple and contemporary with some of the apostles, and died a martyr, at Rome, in a very advanced age, An. 107, speaking of certain heretics of those times, says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." See epis. genuin. ad Smyrnæos. — He calls the Eucharist the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, by which we always live in Christ. — In another part he writes: "I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and for drink, his blood." Again: "use one Eucharist; for the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the cup is one in the unity of his blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the college of the priesthood," &c. //

But apart from the arguments they think they have to the matter, they will apparently not also quote an argument they purported to have, namely early Christian writers?

5:54 Have I got it correct that the Nebraskans you quote use unfermented grape juice?

That would make the Eucharist not just sinful but even invalid, even if otherwise it were done by a Catholic priest in Catholic intentions.

Raised or unleavened, the Catholic Church allows both. In the proper rites.

7:00 Hybrid Judeo-Christian canon. 27 books of NT, fine, that's Christian canon. 39 books only (according to modern division of books) in the OT canon? That's Jewish canon, canon of those who decided to reject Christ ... not so fine.

8:13 The Roman Martyrology makes it roughly 7200 years old.

Christ is born 5199 after Creation. Yes, that is a Scriptural or Biblical Chronology. It is based on a LXX text without the second Cainan. Hence only 942 and not 1070 years from Flood to Birth of Abraham, the latter being what a standard LXX would give.

8:36 Ooops ... turning around from Reformers to Pelagius ...

For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
[Psalms 50:7]

King David is not saying that his mother was living an especially bad life, compared to other married women. He's just saying what it means to transmit original sin, precisely.

See the discussion in the Haydock comment:

// Ver. 7. Sins. Heb. "iniquity,...and in sin did my mother warm or conceive me." Original sin has a manifold deformity, and is the fatal root of other transgressions. See S. Aug. Ench. S. Tho. i. 2. q. 82. a. 2. est multiplex virtute. H. --- The prophet speaks here undoubtedly of original sin. Amama. --- No text could be more express, as the Fathers and the Jews agree. Yet Grotius, whose opinions are almost always singular, and dangerous, maintains, that the expression is hyperbolical, and only implies, that David had been long subject to sin, even from his infancy, as Job was naturally of a merciful disposition. Job xxxi. 18. --- Thus free-thinkers abuse the Scripture, and setting aside all authority, will only see what they think proper. C. --- The weakness of man is a motive for pity: (M.) David pleads for it, yet allows, that the fault was entirely his own, and that he had grace sufficient to have avoided it. C. --- The consideration of our sinful origin, ought to move us to beg, that we may be washed still more, and that we may not yield to our evil propensities. W. --- We may resist them, and therefore David would not make vain excuses in sin, as God love the truth, and a sincere confession. M. //

H = Haydock

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849) was a priest, pastor and Bible scholar from an ancient English Catholic Recusant family. His edition of the Douay Bible with extended commentary, originally published in 1811, became the most popular English Catholic Bible of the 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic. It remains in print and is still regarded for its apologetic value.

C = Challoner

Richard Challoner (29 September 1691 – 12 January 1781) was an English Roman Catholic bishop, a leading figure of English Catholicism during the greater part of the 18th century. The titular Bishop of Doberus, he is perhaps most famous for his revision of the Douay–Rheims translation of the Bible.

M = Menochius

Giovanni Stefano Menochio, 9 December 1575 - 4 February 1655 (aged 79), was an Italian Jesuit biblical scholar.

For Amama, it seems GLH was quoting:

Sixtinus Amama (also Sextinus) (13 October 1593 – 9 November 1629) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and orientalist. Amama was among the first to advocate a thorough knowledge of the original languages of the Bible as indispensable to theologians.

I am not sure if "W" might be an alternative spelling for "Wi" = Witham.

8:48 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[Romans 6:23]

Do babies die, sometimes?

10:36 "It is not faith alone, but faith working in harmony with working obedience."

Congratulations to the Nebraskans to at least get this one right. Here they overturned the Reformers, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Beza ... fine.

Before we welcome them back into the real Church that Christ founded well before Campbell, they need some overhaul about the sacraments.

11:35 And good for them too, that they are against TULIP T or any other letters of that TULIP ...

14:50 They are wrong to state that the gifts of miracles have passed.

The holy Curate of Ars and probably also Padre Pio prophetically knew and warned people who were hiding something, usually a sin, in confession.

15:26 Too bad ... Catholics have sometimes (St. Justin and J. R. R. Tolkien) been premillennialist, we are usually post-millennialist, that is we take battle of Armageddon as identic to the battle in the last verses of chapter 20. We also believe the rapture is post-tribulation, not pre-tribulation.

Apart from that, I'd give more points to Darby than to Buford COC.

16:51 Here I would like to ask if Fort Logan stands with the Catholic Tradition : a man of homosexual inclination may marry, obviously a woman, not another man, even without the inclination being first mentally or psychologically eradicated, unless it is about men who (those being the object of De horrendo scelere, 1568, Pope St. Pius V) were already otherwise obliged to celibacy. This is also the position of the former bishop Chaput of Philadelphia.

Or, does he instead stand with a "Catholic" and "Conservative" modernity saying a man of homosexual disposition cannot marry a woman. The kind of people the modernist James Martin SJ considers as wrong, but only to use them as a foil to promote his own more or less pro-gay-marriage agenda.

Obviously, if you take the conservative neo-Catholic view, you can easily deprive someone of marriage and first of courtship by pretending he is homosexual and therefore saying he's incapable of marriage ... so actual homosexuals are not the only victims.

17:34 Are the guys using "fornication" as a synonym for "adultery"?

The Catholic truth is, the words "except for fornication" involve the case when a just apparent marriage is in fact fornication, like one is under perpetual vows or they are siblings, or one of them hasn't told the other he's already married ...

18:47 The Orthodox would usually be a cappella. Dito Eastern Rite Catholics.

However, while the Catholics of Latin rite allow instruments, the main issue is, we don't agree that some item of worship needs to be explicitly mentioned in the New Testament to be legitimate for Christian use. No book of the New Testament includes the Missale Romanum or the Pontificale Romanum (the latter is for acts reserved for bishops). Liturgy belongs to Tradition more than explicit Scripture.

20:30 The word wine is always used for a beverage with naturally occurring alcohol percentate between 9 and 13 / 14 %.

This exact same beverage is intoxicating or non-intoxicating according to quantity. The appropriate quantity at which to set the limit is up to each man to know. Noah was not committing a mortal sin, he did not know his limits, but if he had drunk the same quantity next day, he would have committed a sin.

C. S. Lewis considered (I hope he was right) that outside Lent he could take more than three pints of beer. My own upper limit in younger and stronger days was three pints, unless I drank very slow. Now it is less, I am less used to drinking more than a pint, but one pint is no problem.

Documentation from Quora (click image to enlarge)

Kelton Schleyer

Agreed, this no-alcohol position is rare and in very conservative CoC's in my experience. I chalk it up to American Prohibition sentiments rather than actual Biblical exegesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kelton Schleyer Ah, yes.

Some conservative Christians are conserving other things than Christianity, like the American Prohibition sentiments or progressive era hightened ages for marriage.

21:01 The guy just made the mistake that St. Paul was warning against.

From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.
[1 Thessalonians 5:22]

Now, if his children had already been monks or nuns, he would have been right, either to tell them to decide no drink at all, or to tell them the rule of St. Benedict allows for what I think is one pint of wine per day, arguably divided between lunch and evening meal and arguably you take a sleep after each of these meals.

But as he was speaking to laymen, he was giving them the appearance of, though not the substance of, wine being an evil. That is, of being Muslims instead of Christians.

Even with Salvation Army it is not quite as bad, since they are "on a mission" precisely among alcoholics, and are trying to make abstinence easier for those who would need abstinence for medical reasons (case opposite my own, by the way).

21:52 So, they believe, contrary to the example of St. Paul, that when a new local congregation is formed, it needs to vote elders or other leaders and the vote = ordination?

Well, they don't have been following the lawful transmission of Apostolic Succession anyway, and they have no "presbuteroi" in the Biblical sense - as also no Eucharist.

23:43 In fact Titus 1:6 does not make being a married husband a requirement - it means being married to more than one wife is a disqualification.

After Abraham had been with Hagar as well as Sarah and after he had remarried after Sarah's death, marrying Keturah, he would not have been in mortal sin, but he would not have fulfilled the requirement. However, St. Paul was married to no one and not only would have been eligible, but actually was a Church leader.

I don't like to misrepresent my opponents

My dialogues are not fictional, though sometimes they are slightly fictionalised as to order of presentation (thematic over chronologic), and if you are an Atheist who feels misrepresented by an Atheist I debated or a Protestant who feels misrepresented by a Protestant I debated or a Muslim who feels misrepresented by Yahya Snow, whom I answered (because he's on the web), take it up with these guys.

So, if from such examples or from someone else complaining about the examples, that I continually relish strawmanning positions not my own, here is a video on the topic, not by me, and under it are some comments of mine.

Four Groups You Might be Misrepresenting
5.IX.2022? | Ready to Harvest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGUloMqpywc

2:08 I suppose that you do not believe that a) Christ founded a Church, b) it always believed what it believes now with very secondary variations, c) it always was visible and therefore in the case of past centuries historically verifiable and d) its past positions, when consistent over centuries are so to speak "supreme court jurisprudence" of the original revelation of Christ (except better than a Supreme court which just recently caught up on a horrible error previous judges made 49 and a half years ago).

If I misrepresented the Catholic position that you don't believe the totality of (you'd probably believe part a), you are free to correct me.

Now, would you agree that it is a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation if someone counters "the Church doesn't mean a building"?

Come to think of it, both Christ and Peter called it a building, though. Matthew 16:18 and I Peter 2:5.

3:53 Arminians and Catholics here agree.

As I have seen many Protestants (presumably not Arminian) tell me more than one OSAS proof text, I would adress these as:

• most of them refer to the Church collectively, not to the individual regenerate Christian
• "blessed is he whose sins are forgiven" doesn't mean you have to have security to not go to Hell for future sins : while you remain in a state of grace you are indeed blessed - even if it is a blessing that you can still lose
• "nothing can separate us from" - one Catholic commenter stated "no but we can separate ourselves - by sinning" and another stated "St. Paul was not adressing those who fall away for pressures and worldly or carnal concerns, he's speaking of the stalwart in a solemn moment"

4:40 There is a difference between "whenever you sin" and "whenever you commit mortal sin" - 1) against a commandment, 2) in an important matter (not shoplifting because you're hungry or saying "c'mon dad" because you are tired); 3) with full deliberation and choice.

That's one reason why Reformers rejecting the distinction (at least hinted in 1 John 5:16) is an occasion for confusion.

9:11 Feeneyists - not the dogmatic position of Catholicism, despite what looks like such a dogma in Trent - would answer "thief on the cross" with that thief dying before the Resurrection and Great Commission, therefore before Baptism became the means of salvation.

9:53 Actually, the faith necessary for baptism can be exercised by the sponsor or sponsors.

The parents are normally out, since representing Adam and Eve, the root of the problem.

The point made by St. Augustine is, Christ's work cannot be less powerful than the First Adam's.

And when the child is baptised, God does work habitual faith, not actual acts of faith, necessarily, but habitual faith, in the child. Hence the necessity for Christian educators, since non-Christian ones would be very prone and have the power to deform this faith already begun.

This was the rationale why Edgardo Mortara was taken away from his Jewish parents. As you may know, these had and wavered a right to visit him from time to time, but when Italy conquered the Papal States, they tried to legally kidnap an already adult son to get him away from Catholic priesthood.

He died in 1940, in Belgium, before it was taken by the NS German invaders.

11:17 I used to think that (only very few, with translation - I Cor 14:27), but when Sid Roth spoke of "personal prayer language" I realised the situations are very different, see my essay "A Reflection on Glossolalia" from Aug. 5th 2022 on the blog "Creation vs. Evolution" - it doesn't in itself thematically belong there, but is in a series which does in previous two parts (1. a Catholic young earth creationist not comparable to mega church pastor, 2. a requirement of young earth creationism - indirectly since other creationist positions have been invalidated - is not comparable to a pseudo-requirement of - glossolalia).

Fortunately, I never made I Cor 14:27 a big part of written apologetics against Pentecostals.