Historic Christianity is Not Derivatives in Mathematics

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Doug Wilson Trying to Square the Circle · Great Bishop of Geneva! Historic Christianity is Not Derivatives in Mathematics

Ryan from Need God Net met Trent Horn.

Trent Horn

... there there are people today whose names you do know who agree with you.

Ryan

Sure. In terms of people I personally know. Yeah.

Trent Horn

And or not personally you know their names. You know their public position.

Ryan

Okay. Yes.

Trent Horn

But but there is no such person like that from the second to the 15th century that you can name a position.

Ryan

No. I do not grant that.

Trent Horn

Okay. What are their names?

Ryan

That's not something that

Trent Horn

What are their names?

Ryan

But that's not something but that's not that's not what I'm come prepared for this debate for. I'm not here to debate what does church father say this or church father over there say. It's what does scripture say on this topic.

Trent Horn

You can't name anyone.

Ryan

If just like this even if you can't define what a derivative is for example someone hasn't studied mathematics it doesn't mean derivatives don't exist.

I'm taking this excerpt from before 1:27 to just before 2:03 in a video by JD:

Catholic Apologist SHUTS DOWN Protestant YouTuber on Faith
JD Catholic Engage | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP4Mq24kk3o

It is from a longer video on either of the channels:

DEBATE: Can a Christian Lose Salvation? (with NeedGod.net)
The Counsel of Trent | 1 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH3DbAjsNcs

[FULL DEBATE] Trent Horn vs NeedGod.net on Salvation
NeedGod․net | 2 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWLIQrTYmBE

Now, let's first deal briefly with Ryan saying he came to debate what the Bible says. I've already answered Doug Wilson on this one. A man who is elect cannot finally lose his salvation. This does not mean that a man who is justified cannot.

But this is to deal with the idea of "people who agreed with me existed, I just don't know their names" ... just like derivatives do.

If you are really a beginner in history, this may help a bit. But if you have done your homework and haven't found any OSAS fathers, you must ask if this is Biblical. Can an idea be absent from an entire century and still belong to the Christian faith? I mean absent from what's now traceable.

The answer would be no.

First, truth as such cannot be lost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
[Matthew 28:20]

But second, it cannot remain hidden from sight:

You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house
[Matthew 5:14-15]

The very minimum is, it cannot be a truth that is visibly contradicted all over what remains to us from a point in the past, without being affirmed in it. Prior to Pope Michael I, Solange Herz, Fernand Crombette, and a priest who collected nine papal condemnations of Heliocentrism (his book was reedited by Pope Michael I) had maintained Geocentrism. Young Earth Creationism or at least a total rejection of Theistic Evolution I found before myself among Catholics in Tom Zimmer, the pilgrim of Loreto, whom I met in Rome in 1986, just before Pentecost I think.

But for a century where Trent Horn can name people contradicting OSAS, it won't do for a man defending it to refer to "I've not studied mathematics, but I know derivatives exist" ...even if he's Ryan and correctly named a ministry "need God" (though he isn't carrying it out or wasn't starting it correctly).

Derivatives may or may not be a thing in mathematical nature, like logarithms probably are. But if they are, they can be there even if they are undiscovered from 5200 BC to 1700's AD. Discovering them isn't a problem. Jesus never promised to be with Mathematicians all days, and He never called them the light of the world. Basel, St. Petersburg, Berlin, none of these are even "cities on hills", but even if they were, Jesus never told Euler "thou are Pious and on this π I will build mathematics, and the powers of ignorance shall never prevail" ... there really and truly is no problem for the mathematic community if derivatives are more than just a neat tool and yet were, for long, undiscovered.

There is a very definite problem for the Church if people believing OSAS in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th centuries on the one hand existed but on the other cannot be discovered, if at the same time you discover loads of people who didn't believe in OSAS. Or at least not that it applies on the individual level, from the pov of the person justified. God knows who His elect are. The elect who are justified but not yet glorified do not know if they are elect, unless God choses to reveal it.

People believing the right thing in all centuries are like the multiplication table, not like derivatives. They are easy to discover at least with modern historic tools, like 3 * 5 = 15. Matthew 5:15, remember.

This also precludes Theistic Evolution or Old Earth Creationism from being correct positions. Or even Heliocentrism. Karl Keating on this issue did wrong to quote Providentissimus Deus "The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it" since Geostasis is not just the position of some individual Church Fathers, but of all who have spoken on the matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bonaventura
14.VII.2026

15.VII Lugduni, in Gallia, depositio sancti Bonaventurae, Cardinalis et Episcopi Albanensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Minorum, doctrina et vitae sanctitate celeberrimi. Ipsius tamen festivitas pridie hujus diei recolitur.
14.VII Sancti Bonaventurae, ex Ordine Minorum, Cardinalis et Episcopi Albanensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui sequenti die migravit ad Dominum.

SSPX Profession of Faith, Some Comments

I'll start in the Mariology section.*

49. I profess that, truly Mother of God and Mother of men, she was associated in a unique and incomparable manner with the redemptive work of her divine Son: the new Eve beside the new Adam, her Fiat opened the way to the Incarnation; her silent fidelity accompanied the entire life of the Saviour; her sorrowful Compassion at the foot of the Cross united her with one heart to the redemptive Sacrifice.52

She was also victorious of the Devil before becoming Mother of God. "Blessed among women" means female defeater of an enemy of the people of God, of Israel, as with Jael and Judith.

The only candidate for Her Sisera or Holophernes is Satan as was made clear to Her when Elisabeth completed the allusion to Genesis 3:15. But She was already Jael and Judith, or Blessed among Women, before Her pregnancy started, because She was called this in verse 28 and it is only in verse 31 that Gabriel says:

Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus

Not only sinlessness, but consequently also releasing Man from Satan starts before She actually becomes Mother of God. A Protestant has said "Mary Delivered Jesus, Jesus Delievered Mary" ... while He died for Her too on Calvary, He gave Her this delivery beforehand, so it is as true to say "Jesus Delivered Mary, Mary Delivered Jesus."

And as He was both God and a pious Son, He did so before She was even there, in the first moment of Her existence.

50. I profess that, thus united to her Divine Son, she merited by congruity in her Compassion what Christ merited by strict justice in His Passion; not as the principal cause of the Redemption, but as a subordinate associate, dependent upon and wholly relative to her Son, in one and the same act of the Redemption of our souls. It is in this sense that Catholic piety, supported by the traditional teaching of Popes and theologians, rightly calls her, by reason of this Compassion, ‘Co-redemptrix’, and consequently ‘Universal Mediatrix’.53

Rather, Co-Redemptrix is accounted for here, but Universal Mediatrix only starts here, at Calvary. Since She was assumed into Heaven, no grace has been given without Her intercession.

Precisely as Jesus, already comprehensor in this life could on Calvary itself through the Beatific Vision, be an elector of each elect man. Now, Mary reached the Beatific Vision on one August 15. Hence, She is universal Mediatrix since assumed.

52. I believe that at the end of her earthly life, she was taken up, body and soul, into celestial glory, where she reigns beside the throne of God, alongside the holy humanity of her Divine Son, over angels and men, exercising her maternal role as Dispensatrix of all Graces.54

Oh, my bad. They actually said the same thing, I was just confused by their terminology, taking "Universal Mediatrix" as "Dispensatrix of all Graces." I think St. Alphonsus uses the term "Mediatrix of all Graces" ... I found Garrigou-Lagrange** joins both Calvary and Her presence in Heaven in the term. What about St. Alphons? Not exactly in this section*** and still not exactly not:

St. Bernardine of Sienna says, that God did not destroy man after his fall,because of the peculiar love that he bore his future child Mary. And the saint adds, that he doubts not all the mercy and pardon which sinners receive under the Old Law, was granted them by God solely for the sake of this blessed Virgin.

Therefore St. Bernard exhorts us, if we have been so unfortunate as to lose divine grace, to strive to recover it, but to strive through Mary; for if we have lost it, she has found it: and hence she is called by this saint, "The finder of grace." This the angel Gabriel expressed for our consolation, when he said to the Virgin, "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace!"But if Mary had never been without grace, how could the angel say to her that she had found it? A thing is said to be found when it has been lost. The Virgin was always with God and with grace; she was even full of grace, as the Archangel himself announced when he saluted her, "Hail! full of grace, the Lord is with thee." If, then, Mary did not find grace for herself, for whom did she find it? Cardinal Hugo answers,when commenting upon the above passage, that she found it for sinners who had lost it. ...

Well, no problem there. Wonder if Michael II will approve?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ss. Peter and Paul
29.VI.2026

It's also St. Marcellus (patron of their founder) and St. Cassius of Narni:

Narniae sancti Cassii, ejusdem civitatis Episcopi, de quo sanctus Gregorius Papa refert quod nullus ferme dies vitae ejus abscedebat, quo placationis hostias omnipotenti Deo non offerret; cui et concordabat vita, quia, cuncta quae habebat, in eleemosynis tribuens, in hora sacrificii totus in lacrimis diffluebat.° Demum, natalitio Apostolorum die, quo singulis annis Romam venire consueverat, in eadem Narniensi urbe, cum Missarum solemnia celebrasset, et corpus Dominicum pacemque omnibus dedisset, migravit ad Dominum.

* Profession of Catholic Faith
of the Society of Saint Pius X
to enlighten souls in the face of modern errors
https://fsspx.news/sites/default/files/documents/profession_of_catholic_faith_en.pdf

** On Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. | November 6, 2025
https://onepeterfive.com/on-mary-as-mediatrix-of-all-graces-by-fr-reginald-garrigou-lagrange/

*** SECTION I. MARY IS OUR LIFE, BECAUSE SHE OBTAINS FOR US THE PARDON OF OUR SINS.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/liguori/glories/glories11.shtml

° Sounds a bit like St. Ignatius of Loyola.

A Radical View of Sola Scriptura: "1689 Second London Baptist Confession"

Jeff Straub quotes:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressely set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men”
(Chapter 1, Paragraph 6).

There are versions of Sola Scriptura which are just annoyingly off.

Then there is this, which is actually deeply wrong.

unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men

The Apostles obviously didn't believe that when changing the day of worship to First Day of the Week.

The Council of Nicaea didn't believe that when replacing agrarian observations at the Jerusalem temple with approach of vernal equinox (for N. Hemisph.) as determination of when Nisan begins. On the other hand, neither did the Jews who switched to a pre-calculated calendar produced by Hillel II.

The Popes didn't believe this when imposing the 12th and 14th completed birthdays (for ladies and for gengtlemen) as last days that marriage would be prohibited and even invalid due to defective age.

Note also the formulation: "either expressely set down or necessarily contained" .... contained by cultural circumstances back in the first C. AD isn't good enough. A circumstance is not a necessity. Dito for clear allusions.

Some modern Protestants who defend the raising of the marital age by referring to customs in 1st C AD Judaea (which I'd like the sources for*) fall afoul of this rule (as much as Popes do, with the 14/12 rule, except to them it was never a rule in the first place).

And clear allusions in Luke 1:28 and 42 are not good enough to establish that Mary is sinless, of which the maximal version is, since Her conception.

Know another thing which falls afoul of this rule? The rule itself. Sola Scriptura non in Scriptura./HGL

---

* One can also mention, Babylonian Jews had a younger limit. Meaning for personal consent to marriage. Whether the thing of Judaea is true or not, and excluding marriage by paternal order below a certain age.

Some Catholic Apologists Think They are Doing a Better Job than Me

On FB, I just found a post by Catholics Online Class, third from top right now, which starts out:

DID THE CHURCH CHAIN THE BIBLE AND B-U-RN WILLIAM TYNDALE FOR TRANSLATING IT? 🤔😲

Now, there is good stuff in it, but take a look at this:

WHO EXECUTED WILLIAM TYNDALE?

Here’s the truth that almost no one tells you:

Tyndale was not killed by the Catholic Church.

He was executed by King Henry VIII, the Protestant King of England, in 1536.

Let that sink in.

By then, Henry had already broken away from Rome (in 1534) and founded the Anglican Church, the same church that later produced the King James Version of the Bible.

Tyndale was betrayed by his friend Henry Philips, arrested in Flanders, and condemned by civil authorities loyal to King Henry, not by the Pope, not by any Catholic bishop.

He was strangled and burned at the stake for political rebellion and heresy, not for “translating the Bible.”

So, the claim that “the Catholic Church K!-illed Tyndale” is not just false, it’s historical revisionism.

Now, it is certainly true that he was executed in 1536.

It is also true that by then Henry VIII was schismatic (but not Protestant, though he favoured some personnel who were).

It is also always technically true that a heretic is executed by civil authorities. A heretic burned in the Papal state, would have been judged as heretic by priests, loyal to the then Pope as bishop of all bishops and as first shepherd of the faithful on earth, but he would have been condemned to death by a civil servent, loyal to the same Pope as secular (though theocratic) ruler of the papal state.

However, he was not just arrested in Flanders, he was executed in Flanders. The civil authorities in Flanders were not loyal to Henry VIII, they were loyal to Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, in his quality of Duke of Brabant. You could say, he was loyal to his position and vengeful against rebellious Augsburg league. Or you can say he was loyal to Catholicism. But you cannot say he was disloyal to Catholicism.

Vilvoorde is in Belgium, not in the UK. It was in Brabant, not in England.

And while the process of burning a heretic belonged to secular authorities, the process of judging that he was a heretic belonged to Catholic priests. In this case to one James Latomus. Or "Masson" he was surnamed before joining priesthood.

The story isn't about an angry king who hated the Tyndale Bible. It's about a priest who took great pains to find out what Tyndale believed about justification and good works.

Both Latomus and Tyndale agreed, justification does not depend on previous good works. But Latomus insisted on justification meaning you sign up for good works in the future. Tyndale disagreed. Obviously, Ephesians 2:8—9 give the common ground between them and verse 10 decides for Latomus (they were discussing Romans 3 at this point).

Tyndale wasn't burned for the Bible, but for Free Grace theology. That's what Protestantism was back then. Some Evangelicals love Lordship salvation. Back then it's spelled Latomus and Roman Catholic, not Tyndale nor Lutheran.

Anyway, I tried to look at other sources if any one would say he was burned in England, apart from Catholics Online Class. I didn't find any. But before looking, I actually asked:

Excuse me, but can you substantiate that Tyndale was burned in England under Henry VIII?

Because the common story, accepted not just by fanatical Protestants, but also by secularists is, he died in Vilvoorde, under the Spanish Inquisition.

And not for the translation, but for how he interpreted a verse in Romans 3.

Perhaps these guys in Nigeria overrelied on the story he was executed for the Bible. Perhaps they confused him with someone else who was executed in England for Tyndale's Bible, but that was not Tyndale. But he was executed in Flanders, in a time when an English translation was highly irrelevant there, for his views on justification. By actual Catholics.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort
28.IV.2026

In pago sancti Laurentii ad Separim, dioecesis Lucionensis, sancti Ludovici Mariae Grignion a Montfort, Confessoris, Fundatoris Missionariorum Societatis Mariae et Filiarum a Sapientia, apostolicae vitae forma, praedicatione et devotione mariali insignis, quem Pius Papa Duodecimus Sanctorum catalogo adscripsit.

Imagine Keaton Halley had Told me "Dude, Become a Protestant, you Catholics Have CCC § 283"

He would have some kind of point, considering the shape in which Catholicism is today.

Pope Michael I* (who never endorsed CCC and considered Wojtyla a formal schismatic, on top of already a heretic, since July 16 1990, that is before Wojtyla endorsed CCC) considered on one of his youtubes a Catholic in the Vatican II Sect as usually a displaced soul.

But he would not have as much of a point if we discussed Protestants and Catholics back in 1860. In Cologne, that year, a local Council reaffirmed Biblical creation of Adam and Eve in a formal resolution. But in Church of England, Bishop Wilberforce cannot get a condemnation of Darwinism, he can just polemise against it. As if he were just a writer, not a pastor. If you know 1260's and 70's some, you will know that St. Thomas Aquinas polemised against Averroism, as a writer, but Bishop Tempier condemned Averroism.

From the 1860's to 1880's French Catholicism was gliding from a preference for Six Literal Days to a preference for Day Age ... but never accepted an evolutionary origin of Adam, that only came way later, because of Teilhard de Chardin and his friends. Meanwhile, in the South of the US, it was not uncommon to hold that Adam was created way later than the first men on day VI, and that Adam wasn't ancestor to Black people. Perhaps not the Baptist thing, but I presume it was mostly Episcopalians there who held this.

So, historically, as a Young Earth Creationist, I do have a home in the Catholic Church.

Keaton Halley, however, knows this too well to make the kind of remarks I imagined in the title. Well, perhaps not the part of my adhering to Pope Michael I and now Michael II, rather than to Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio and Prevost.

Now, Allie Beth Stuckey made a similar remark, but on the Abortion question. Here is a caption from** Politico:

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

I disagree with the last part. Since then, banning abortion has become a real goal, I know there have been real celebrations, and racial segregation doesn't seem to be a real goal any more. But the first part is not fake news, it's not false history. Precisely as in 1830, it was easier to deny Six Recent Days and no Gap before that in the Church of England than in the Church of Rome.

Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976.

My mother was Evangelical at this time. But when we visited the US next year, like partly for me to start learning English, partly for mother to get me a few months out of European social services, especially Swedish ones, but also Austrian, which is where we were living at this time, she didn't go to Southern Baptists. We spent so much of my initial time as a Christian believer in one particular environment, the sect or if you prefer denomination "The Walk" ... unlike much of White Evangelicals at the time, my mother was already pro-life, and at the very least The Walk was not openly promoting this kind of position.

How were the Catholics at this point?

The history of that movement, however, is more complicated. White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue.

By 1973, not every Catholic was actually Catholic. If you rehearsed the tambourine to take it to a guitar mass, where everyone present pronounced the words of consecration, that's what some did to Catholic liturgy, when the actual text of the new liturgy wasn't enough. The family of one David Bawden (born in 1959, on Hobbit Day) was among those preferring to stay home and to find out where there was a Catholic priest disgraced for actually being faithful to the liturgy, and then get them to say the Mass in Latin.

Those who were actually Catholics, not always as radical as David Bawden's youth, sometimes even coinciding with the kind of "devoutly Protestant Catholics" I described, were the ones the Evangelicals back then considered as the main opponents of Roe v. Wade.

When I was 15, I was offered the opoportunity to join a "secret society" and given that Freemasonry is for adult men (except Zonta lodges), that would not have been a Lodge, it would probably have been sth like the De Molay's. I didn't feel it sat quite right, so, I decided to phone my mother about it.

Her words are worth noting.

No, Franco banned secret societies, and abortion was forbidden in Franco Spain.

Knowing her, and knowing the faith which I owed partly to her, I didn't need to ask if banning abortion was a good or a bad thing. If there is a downside to Dobbs, it's that it only allows states and doesn't oblige the union to ban abortion, and in Franco's Spain, abortion was banned all over Spain.

I did not become a De Molay. I did not become a Freemason. I do not intend to become a Freemason. I did become a Catholic, and the kind of Catholic who has, with or without reservations, a deepfelt admiration for Francisco Franco Bahamonde, por Gracias de Dios Caudillo de España.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Zita of Lucca
27.IV.2026

Lucae, in Tuscia, beatae Zitae*** Virginis, virtutum et miraculorum fama conspicuae.

* Own site: Welcome to the Vatican In Exile Website. POV of a non-adherent: Morn is Approaching

** The article is here:

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
By Randall Balmer | 05/10/2022 03:24 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480

*** I could obviously have taken St. Peter Canisius SJ as saint of the day, a Geocentric and YEC by the way, like St. Zita of Lucca, but I'm also very pro-Habsburg and she is patron saint of the last Emperor's widow.

Frank Turek vs Frank Turek

Frank Turek

The 27 books of the New Testament didn't need specification of the Church to be and to be validly recognised as the Word of God.

Also Frank Turek

The canon of the OT was pretty much agreed on up to the Council of Trent, because there was never an ecumenical council that added the apocrypha.

So, Church Father after Church Father, local councils that have the correct 27 NT books, nothing like that recognising 45~46 OT books changes that the inspired OT was 39 books, according to the private opinion of St. Jerome and a local council that omitted Apocalypse from their 26 book NT canon (Laodicaea).

If Church recognition in a generalised way is enough to recognise the precise 27 books of the NT, it is also enough in a generalised way to recognise the full Catholic OT.

If the full Catholic OT would have needed an Ecumenical council, well, that means noone had the NT canon prior to Trent and perhaps Florence before that.

The position is absurd. Councils are there to confirm Tradition, not to create it.

If Frank Turek genuinely believes that Trent (or Florence before that) created a Tradition of 73 books, sorry, he doesn't know history./HGL

"Nobody Believes That"

Frank Turek and a Catholic guy were speaking of justification, and Frank Turek said "Trent condemns salvation from grace alone through faith alone".

The Catholic guy said, "if by faith you mean a purely intellectual assent".

I think it was Frank Turek who said (sound off, I just read subtitles, and here both men were shown and shown too small for me to see who moved the lips), "nobody believes that."

Now, the thing about Trent is, it condemned LOADS of things no Christian faction was believing at this point.

It did condemn what it saw as errors of Protestantism.

Saying that a man who in goodwill and trusting God reads the Bible without having the guidance of the Church can find salvation is NOT among the condemned errors. What is condemned is persisting in an interpretation when you know it contradicts that of the Church's magisterium "through the ages" (paraphrasing in an SSPX sense) or "the sense that the Church" (meaning its magisterium) "hath held and now holds" (meaning, there is no condemnation of those who reject a modern position of the magisterium, known to be modern, if someone tells a Catholic "oh, you're fine if you believe the creation days were long ages" that's not even what the magisterial document said, in 1909 it said "theologians are free to discuss" ... basically whether to allow that or not ... a discussion that didn't take place), and there is an addition about contradiction "or also of the unanimous sense of the fathers".

But trying the Bible on your own, especially as a new Christian who has no experience of the Catholic Church is not condemned.

Now, in this case, there were actually Protestants, most notably Luther, who had come very close to saying things like "if I read the Bible, I can conclude that all Church Fathers and a Council dealing with this question, even an Ecumenical one, was in error" ... that is condemned in Session IV.

But when it comes to the great themes, and justification is one of them, the Council opted for condemning things that even Luther, Zwingli and Calvin would promptly condemn, and putting the condemnations against these in that context. Not just a list of pre-existing bad Protestant statements, but a map of errors in the direction of Protestantism.

General Council of Trent: Fifth Session
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fifth-session.htm

General Council of Trent: Sixth Session
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm

These map out the whole doctrine, so to speak, of Original Sin (Session V) or of Justification (Session VI). They map it out by condemning things that no Catholic is allowed to say about these subjects.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

In other words, Trent's condemning Free Grace. And unlike Evangelicals, the mainline historic Protestant Churches do have a historic penchant from their Reformers to Free Grace.

But there were indeed things condemned which no Protestant sect at the time believed, at least none of the bigger ones.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Why exactly this take?

Why not be content as the Church had been in the days of Bishop Tempier and of Pope Pius IX to issue a list of actually extant errors?

Well, it was an Ecumenical Council, such are costly and may wreak some havoc in making people refuse them.

In Nicaea, one was content to condemn the error of Arius. Came Constantinople I, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and III, six councils, by the way usually accepted by Lutherans and Calvinists, unlike Nicaea II, because the first of them was content to condemn errors already existing.

The Council Fathers at Trent kind of could see this coming, since Protestantism, among other things, hankered back to the heresiarchs condemned in Constance, namely Wyclif (absent, already dead) and Hus.

So, they basically settled for a deep dive, "let's get everything right!" in order to avoid centuries of disputes about what the original condemnations were really supposed to condemn or not condemn, allow or even enjoin.
/Hans Georg Lundahl