Hello. This is my first visit. I think I'm a fan. Your point that we agree more with traditional Protestants than with progressive Catholics is well made.
Would anybody here agree that a useful contribution to the traddie position would be to explore what was wrong with pre-Vat2 Catholicism, and what was right about the conciliar reforms - ?

What was wrong with 2,000 year old pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism? I see nothing good about the 50 year old conciliar reforms (V2) experiment. Objectively, it corresponds to complete collapse of Vocations and faithful practice. It changed things that should never be changed.

What is good about Catholicism, in my view, is the connection between all generations back through time to Christ; forward in time to the parousia. Catholics continue on, as we always have; time is not a barrier. We call it Sacred Tradition, and it does not belong to us to alter or modify according to the "times". It belongs to God, and it is unchanging by nature.

IOW, pre-V2 Catholicism is good. Post-V2 Catholicism is a deviation from the long straight line of Sacred Tradition.

I agree with you very much. As an Ex-Protestant, I do miss the zeal for Christ bred into the culture of my Baptist upbringing.

But, while we may agree with them on much, what we disagree on is fundamental and bedrock. That gap cannot be bridged without complete conversion.

My Protestant heritage is filled with very good people with large hearts. But they are missing many things that are key to salvation. And the last thing they need, if we wish their conversion, is a Met Gala where the holy things of God are presented in a sacrilegious festival; sexualized, paganized, played with by evil people. Uzzah (II Sam 6:7) was struck down and killed by God for merely touching the Ark of the Covenant, and his intentions were arguably good. Our Church is holy. It contains God Himself in the Tabernacle. We should act as if we believed we held and presented God Almighty, creator and sustainer of the Universe; life.

Conversion of the world, starting with our good-hearted Protestant brethren, starts with converting ourselves back to God in all His majesty and might; to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, body and strength. Such a Christian will return to the Sacred Tradition you recommend here, "like a deer returns to water".

My favorite part of your post, besides the broad condemnation of Protestants, is how you backed up that condemnation with absolutely nothing.

Of course, considering such a ridiculous assertion has no chance of being supported, maybe that's why you omitted any such support?

Oh well, I guess I'll continue to enjoy that measly Christ effecting me, being justified by grace. (Gal. 5:4)

What a shame you felt you had to demean a thoughtful contribution.

There was literally no thought involved, the person claimed to agree with the piece, only to proceed to resort to the very tribalism the piece rebuked. Get a freakin' clue.

I find it fascinating that you summarize my observation that Protestants and Catholics have different beliefs as "tribalism". It's simply a fact. You cannot bridge the gap, between one and the other, without conversion. You are either one or another. By definition.

And once you are truly converted to the Catholic Faith, you will love the Lord God, in all His majesty: heart, soul, mind, body, strength. He is there in the Tabernacle on the altar. Close. We receive Him, body, soul, divinity, in communion. That is the Catholic Faith.

Heck I long for the day Catholicism is "Catholic" again. I'm not holding my breath.

As Pentecost approaches, I should plan on imbibing the "spirits" of the various monks, even to the point of incoherency. And insure I've scheduled a confession.

I also consider terrorizing people over their deepest beliefs is proper if it includes a lack of belief in property rights enabling burglary and robbery, or that women are sentient and can say "No", etc. It doesn't matter if the belief is deep or shallow, but whether the depth is trying to get beyond the bedrock of reason or beyond the sand of relativism to find that same bedrock.

Acts is a good book to read, as the early Apostles and believers weren't always in harmony on everything, but they feared God and rejoiced in the good news of the Lord.

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The one caveat to that verse from Ephesians is spiritual warfare is pretty clearly ramping up in this current age, with more and more doing the devil's bidding, and that includes more and more so called believers. Brother David Wilkerson has a sermon about this you can see on YouTube, dubbed "Satan's Final War Plan Exposed". He was particularly keen to these things, and I can attest to it myself: That the more you press into God's word, the more the devil comes after you, but greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.

Truth is, the devil and all who serve him are no match for the light of Christ, and they don't want anything to do with it. The devils believe and do tremble. Stand firm against the devil and he will flee like lightning.

The devil then is reduced to trickery, not being able to take on believers face to face, again we turn to Ephesians: Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Notice that, the "wiles" of the devil.

One final word here, from the master Jesus: "In this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."

Hallelujah.

This is an injustice to Dr Pink. Sanctions, not physical force, per canon law.

The word he used was "coercion." He subsequently has defended the use of force, in online exchanges. If he wishes to clarify that he rejects the use of physical coercion, I will GLADLY, delightedly, withdraw my criticisms of him.

First of all, coercion boiled down to meaning only or even primarily physical force is not doing justice to the full meaning of the word. MWebster give “physical” force only the 3rd meaning. If you listen or read Pink it’s pretty clear he means primarily fines, sanctions, strong disincentives. Sort of what is in effect in 1983 code of canon law, in fact.

Given that Pink accepts Vatican II's ban on the State enforcing such sanctions, how would the church enforce such sanctions? How would it collect such fines? What if people refuse to pay? The power to take people's money by force implies the right to use physical force to do so, on threat on imprisonment. That's why we give the IRS our money. The idea of the Church grabbing the sword of the state to punish heretics logically implies its use of force. But I've seen Pink say nothing to discourage Integralists who cite him to justify the silencing of heretics in the old style. If he really believes what you're saying, he has a duty to correct them.

The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has a threefold power

Legislative
Judicial
Coercitive

The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has the power to impose both Temporal and Corporal punishment.

It does not belong to the Church to exact obedience to her decrease by external force

The Church has no right to coerce the violators of her laws by temporal punishments

are propositions properly condemned.

Your first point: only when the society is secular, not majority catholic.

You’re missing many distinctions that Pink makes in his arguments. For instance, the state has no authority of itself to enforce religious teachings; the sanctions he mentions are all included in current canon law; he is not talking about torturing people so they will live as Catholics; a sanction is an incentive that punitively brings about certain behaviors and/or beliefs—drop the heresy or leave your chair at a Catholic University.

Your reading of him is so minimalist that it makes his argument trivial. Has anyone really contested that Canon Law is incompatible with Dignitatis Humanae? Maybe Fr. Curran, but no one orthodox. Why does he set up an elaborate mechanism to show DH is compatible with Tradition, if all he means is that the Church can enforce Canon Law within its institutions? Why state that the Church retains the coercive authority it once granted the State--which included use of violent force?

I think your reading of him so extreme that he appears to relish the thumb screws. Which of course is wrong.

Your last point: many have forgotten or reject the proposition that the Church can use negative sanctions—vide Cardinal Wuerl. Pink’s point isn’t trivial and I don’t think I’m misstating it. Your second point is missing his main interpretation of DH—it mainly applies to non-baptized or those in a secular state. He is arguing for its consistency w previous magisterium. DH itself maintains that all previous teaching on these issues remains intact. See his discussion at ND from their conference “Freedom Set Free”.

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen, a scholar of no bias being of another fatih, is a must read to rid history of the Black Legend of Protestantism that even Catholics widely believe.

Notice that I listed alongside the persecutions of Elizabeth I, which were roughly as bad.

One of the things you would learn from Kamen's work is that the few Inquisitors that there were (mainly in large urban areas), were mainly faced with cases of Jewish converts to Catholicism, who did so to gain economic status but were denounced by their former community to Inquisitors, often out of spite for apostasy and accused of secret involvement in Jewish ritual. Protestantism in Spain never posed any challenges, and muslims were initially tolerated in Spain until uprisings happened often fueled by the belief, and maybe rightly so, of Ottoman interference in Spain.
Torquemada was himself a Jewish convert. Nothing like an overzealous convert to reflect faith in a bad light.

Thank you Mr. Zmirak for this terrific article. As a Catholic and Episcopalian raised currently non-denominational Christian I have had to defend Catholicism from fundamentalists and I appreciate you efforts from the Papist front on the behalf of Evangelicals. We are all Christians in an increasingly hostile world and we need to build on another up.
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:13

Mr. Zmirak, I'm still waiting for your Bad Catholic's Guide to New York City. Does the project really hold no attraction for you?

Thanks, but the Church isn't funny at the moment. Maybe someday, under Pope Leo XIV (Cardinal Sarah), it will be again.

I'll try to be patient.

It is difficult (for me anyway) not imagine what such a work might look like: "Dagger" John Hughes could serve as interlocutor/guide. Perhaps the work could be divided into three parts like the Divine Comedy with Hughes leading the narrator through NYC Inferno & Purgatorio.

Having taught brilliant evangelical Protestant students at The King's College in New York City, I appreciate Mr. Zmirak's observations that we need to strengthen our alliances with people who sincerely live their faith--who agree with faithful Catholics on 90 percent of traditional Christian doctrine, and do the "heavy lifting" in the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage battles. This was a great column!

Dr. Hendershott, this alliance is the cause of our current malaise. Very little good has come of it, and while I welcome such good, like the ban on partial-birth abortion signed by George W. Bush, I dislike the rest, such as the rise of more Protestant theocratic views of society, which Catholics must resist, or, on something of the flip side, the further erosion of the rights of workers in this country, as we saw this past week with the decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.

Yeah, most of what I know about Catholicism has come from reading Mr Zmirak’s writings here on the Stream. Apart from a general knowledge gleaned by virtue of being a believer of course.
As such, I make no pretense for being authoritative where Catholic doctrine, dogma or duplicity is concerned.
Likewise my being born to non practicing Jewish parents doesn’t qualify me as an authority on Jewish doctrine, dogma or duplicity either. Where the non Judeo - Christian faiths so called , are concerned my relative knowledge of scripture & my personal knowledge of God through faith in His Son & the illumination the HS provides qualifies me for this one thing. The ability by faith to understand. To understand the distinctives that differentiate “true religion” if you will from the false religions masquerading as the truth.
I can rejoice in the discoveries each historical expression of this so great a faith may offer . The world is a richer place in light of these different reflections of the multi faceted glories of our God & His Christ.
Yet it all pales in comparison to the incomparable grace of the knowledge of God. Both the Word & the Spirit agree on that sentiment.
That’s an agreement hard to beat. One which should unite the very diverse yet exclusive family of believers. One which transcends all other cause celebre - or at least it must ...