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.

Prayer to the Saints in the Time of Jesus

Is This PROOF of Prayer to Saints in Jesus' Time?
Sips with Serra | 12 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7HtBmQwGLM

One could say:
if it was a) believed by Jews at the time of Jesus and b) nowhere condemned in the NT nor from Apostolic Tradition, it means it's OK, because the precursor of the Catholic Church was the Jewish Church.

I have made this argument about Purgatory. Or minimally, prayers for the dead.

Calvin understood the principle, that's why he pretends that Jews started praying for the dead in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and whether II Maccabees is canon or not is beside the point, simply by being history, it disproves Calvin.

7:06 I'm noting, Calvin uses the pretext of mockery in commenting on verse 47, but Calvin doesn't comment on verse 49.

Here is part of Calvin's comment on verse 47:

For Satan has no method more effectual for ruining the salvation of the godly, than by dissuading them from calling on God. For this reason, he employs his agents to drive off from us, as far as he can, the desire to pray. Thus he impelled the wicked enemies of Christ basely to turn his prayer into derision, intending by this stratagem to strip him of his chief armor. And certainly it is a very grievous temptation, when prayer appears to be so far from yielding any advantage to us, that God exposes his name to reproaches, instead of lending a gracious ear to our prayers. This ironical language, therefore — or rather this barking of dogs — amounts to saying that Christ has no access to God, because, by imploring Elijah, he seeks relief in another quarter.

Pretty obviously, seeing verse 49 is incompatible with the interpretation, that's arguably why Calvin didn't comment on it.

Nova Gazer

@Nova_Gazer

Just a careful (possibly not needed) clarification. Elijah was not bodily assumed into heaven in the sense that the Blessed Mother was. No one entered heaven (the Beatific Vision) until after Jesus' Crucifixion. According to my (scanty) research, Church Fathers and theologians liked to use the word "translated" into heaven or more properly the paradise which would likely be the same paradise Abraham and the Old Testament Saints were in before Jesus rescued them.

I

Kinghood of Mousekind

@kinghoodofmousekind2906

The "Bosom", right? It is interesting how in Italian and other Romance languages we say "Paradiso" for "Heaven", with "il seno di Abramo" for the Bosom of Abraham.

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Not really.

Henoch and Elias are translated into a lower Heaven than the Empyrean one, and that bodily, unlike the souls who were translated souls only into the Bosom of Abraham.

Jesus and Mary are in the Empyrean Heaven, above the fix stars.

Henoch and Elias are probably on one of the planets that God has made inhabitable for them.

TomasTomi

@TomasTomi30

@hglundahl what? What planets?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 Which one would be third from Earth?

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus. Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera. Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo. Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri. Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum. Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus. Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore. Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est. Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei. Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem. Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est. Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud. Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem. In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.

St. Thomas considers that St. Paul just might have been raptured to the Terrestrial Paradise in II Cor 12, but he cautions that St. Augustine thinks differently.

I don't think St. Thomas on II Cor is available in English translation.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl This speaks nothing to me, I will rather (ask and) listen to my bishop and priests he appointed in our local church which is in communion with the succesor of st. Peter. As is the tradition since year 33 A.D. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 You are obviously free to do so, but tell him, I'm pretty familiar with St. Thomas. The one from "Sicily." Aquino outside Naples.

I never claimed to be your bishop, I only claim to be a knowledgeable Catholic layman.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl No you did not, but on my question you presented me only a latin text, you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims. I am sorry but you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic. I do not say you are troll, but this way of argumentation is no good. Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 "but on my question you presented me only a latin text,"

With a resumé of some highlights and a regret that I didn't have an English translation.

"you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims."

My best defense would arguably be, somewhere St. Thomas (or someone he cited) mentions earthly paradise being lifted up from Earth, not destroyed, and also not lifted up into Empyrean Heaven where God is in His throne room, but into one of the lower planets.

To those familiar with Medieval and Late Antiquity cosmology, that means a planetary heaven.

"you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic."

The two are not exclusive. If the word troll had been used like that, pretty certainly Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc would have been called ink-and-print trolls, and probably (though I haven't read her) Flannery O'Connor as well.

"The truth will make you odd" she has been quoted as saying.

The two others were decorated by Pope Pius XI.

"this way of argumentation"

I didn't catch you were making an objection, so I didn't try to provide an argumentation. I was only quickly trying to respond to what I took as a question. My bad.

@TomasTomi30 I have now added, into the post with comments and dialogue, a translation of the passage:

[link to this post]

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify:

• the Bosom of Abraham was in a sense Paradise,
• but is different from Earthly Paradise, from which Adam and Eve were expelled, and which was arguably translated upward, to one of the planets, at the latest in the Deluge.

Kinghood of Mousekind

@hglundahl good clarification!

II

Brutus Kelpamine

@BrutusKelpamine

Wrong ! The only person who went to heaven before Jesus was Enoch..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BrutusKelpamine Have you read this?

And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:11]

Translation of the Thomas passage:

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus.		Given the first rapture, the second rapture is consequently posited.
Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera.		And he had two of them: first is stated "raptus", second, the excellence of the rapture, "there he heard secrets" and so on.
Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo.		But note, the Gloss says that this rapture was other than the first one.
Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri.		And if we consider well, twice we read sth of the Apostle to which the two raptures could refer.
Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum.		For in Acts 9:9 is read of him that he stood three days without seing and eating nor drinking nothing, and to this the first rapture can be referred, namely this was when he was raptured into the Third Heaven.
Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus.		But in Acts 22:17 is read that in the Temple he incurred a stupor of the mind, and to this that second rapture is referred.
Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore.		But this does not seem likely, since when he was in a stupor of the mind, the Apostle had already been imprisoned; but this Epistle the Apostle wrote long before, so, this Epistle was written before the Apostle was in a stupor of mind.
Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est.		And hence we say, this rapture differs from the first, as to that into the rapture was.
Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei.		For in the first, the rapture is into the Third Heaven; but in the second into the Paradise of God.
Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem.		But if someone accepts the Third Heaven in a corporeal manner, according to the first meaning of heavens posed above, or if the vision was imaginary, he could likewise say a bodily Paradise, so as to say that the rapture was into the Terrestrial Paradise.
Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est.		But this is against the understanding of St. Augustine, according to which we say, that the rapture was into the Third Heaven, that is into a vision of intelligiblesn according to how they are seen in themselves and in their own nature, as said above.
Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud.		Hence, according to this, one should not understand one thing by the Heaven and another by the Paradise, but one and the same by both, that is the glory of the saints, but according to different aspects.
Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem.		For Heaven meansof a certain height with light, but Paradise a certain blissful sweetness.
In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.		But in the blessed saints and Angels who see God, these two are foremost, since in them is a highest light, in which they see God, and a highest sweetness, in which they delight in God.

Sharing on Islamic Dilemma

New blog on the kid: Otranto · Understanding the Crusades / Phillip Campbell · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sharing on Islamic Dilemma

Muslim Accidentally ADMITS the Quran is CORRUPTED
Sips with Serra | 18 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1H0YirfQAo

Sharing

Atheists Send Kid to Catholic School, then THIS Happens...
Sips with Serra | 3 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKyblEovJ00