For anyone who doesn’t know Scott’s wife, Kimberly, also has a Master’s in theology, & she homeschooled their kids. I wish we all had that rich of a Christian education from the start. I think 2 of their sons are Catholic priests. I’m so jealous of those kids & of Steve Ray’s kids too.
WOW! My mind is blown away by Dr. Hahn's explanation! I am a catechist in my parish preparing candidates for the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the course of my lesson preparations I have discovered that I am being taught by the Holy Spirit too. Thanks to PWA and other UA-cam Catholic channels, both my learners and I are growing in the Faith. Keep up the great work! May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.
Dr. Scott Hahn possesses so much knowledge about the topic. Hence it is very hard or imposible to unpack all at that very same moment. Analyze every single sentence he speaks and you will notice how rooted in scripture his answers are. He is just at another level for all of us to even comprehend what he is trying to convey to this poor young confused soul! Let's pray for all of them so that God keeps on using all of them for our own good!
@@jessebryant9233 because the Papacy existed before all other Christian denominations. That’s historical fact. The burden of proof is on the people saying it shouldn’t exist when it has for nearly 2,000 years. It’s also impossible to disprove the Papacy, why should someone try to prove what’s impossible to disprove? See how that works?
@@spaceminivanwanter Even if that were true (and you can't prove or even argue that it is), that still doesn't prove the Papacy. As for your snark, no silly, that's not how this works.
He's great at bloviating and not actually answering questions. He has a great presence and voice-it sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but leaves me very dissatisfied, often confused.
@@jessebryant9233 Just because you are left confused and dissatisfied, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is not answering any question. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about because he actually answers the questions posed to him with clarity and nuance. If it's something in particular that he's said which confuses you then I'd be more than willing to try and help clear up any confusion.
@@csongorarpad4670 Confused and dissatisfied? That's because, as in the clip above, he tells says a bunch of words that don't actually answer the question. I mean, he attempts to validate the Papacy (in another clip from the same show) by saying, "Why not..."? Basically saying, "Why not just extrapolate that idea?" (Which seemed to be him assuming that Papacy in the first place.) Seriously? And yes, perhaps he "sounds like" he knows, but I don't think he does-as the clip above suggests. But you claim "clarity and nuance", so what would be an example of that in the above clip? If you're right, I'm obviously missing something... I just don't see 'doctrinal authority' (being true to the text) and the 'Papacy' as the same thing. So again, maybe I'm missing something...
@@jessebryant9233 I honestly don't know where to begin. I've no issue following his reasoning from start to finish so I couldn't say where, exactly, he specifically answers the question because the answer lies in the entirety of his answer. It'd be more easier for me to ask you if you consider his entire answer unintelligible or if there is a specific part which you have trouble following along with.
@@csongorarpad4670 Nice try, but no, the answer cannot be found anywhere in his reply. Fact is, neither he nor any other Catholic in the history of the world can validate the Papacy.
St. James the less, son of Alpheus, was also called 'the brother of the Lord'. St. Paul specifically says that St. Peter and St. James, the brother of Our Lord, were the only apostles he met with in that Galatians snipit. (In this case, cousins german = hebrew brother, siblings can be established with 'sons of...,' but also referred to as bretheren) So... You are both probably right.
@@AceyBleach Catholicism does not accept that Jesus had a literal brother born of Mary. The Scriptures have many references to brothers and sister. The word in Galatians for brother means brother.
But YOU DO NOT love the Lord's words! For example, when he said to partake of BOTH bread and wine, YOU and everyone else in the Catholic camp, ONLY TAKE THE BREAD, contrary to his commandment. So you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
@@mojo7495 my dear brother in Christ we do receive His precious Blood even though we are sinners but our blessed Lord in His mercy and love wants to feed us His precious Holy Body and Blood daily. “ O precious Blood of Jesus pour over this brother cover him and keep him under the mantle of Mary and the cloak of patriarch St. Joseph. Amen!
@@soroushfetkovich5084 You are deluded. and are nothing but a hypocrite. Jesus said to take BOTH bread and wine and you spit in his face by only taking the bread. Second, you're also ignorant of history. In Trent's decree on the Eucharist, they hammered out that anyone who thinks Christ was speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper is "satanic, godless, contentious and evil". And since you think they were an infallible Council, well then that must be what God thinks of ME, so what right have YOU to call me a brother when your own church says it is not so?
Peter spoke first, which I think is telling, since if James is the leader, he should have been the one to stand up first and settle the issue once and for all yet it was Peter who settled the question and ultimately provided direction and afterwhich made everyone silent without exception. James only affirmed what has already been said. And in acts 5:29 the passage highlighted first the name of Peter and the fact the it was Peter who together with the apostles declare that they follow GOD and not men. And there are more instances in the acts of the apostles that highlight's Peter's leadership. Finally, Luke as a writer is also doctor, an authority ... people with problems and concerns come to him therefore he would be cognizant even in writing to reveal or just give context if ever James is the leader or someone in Authority to answer problems and concerns just like Paul's and Barbabas'... but it was not what Luke wrote, again Luke's writing highlighted Peter's authority and guidance and in which it seems James only took the cue from. Even today, in our corporate world or even just secular activities, the leader often than not issues the direction and guidance and overall plan of action but the managers are the one who administer to what the leader wants or advices. And this is what happened in acts 15 I suppose
As I see it, if James had not agreed with Peter it would have been the first schism of the Church. Peter still the leader (as pronounced by Jesus) of the apostolic Church and James would have had to start his own breakaway church.
@@nathanieldrain907 Amen. I had a sort of Bayesian probability mindset when I converted to Christianity. But I never gave it an exact number and told people I’m at 78% based off my calculations. It’s surprising looking back how many enlightenment presuppositions I didn’t even know I had.
What about them is that those verses contradict the idea that the Church or Mary functions as a mediator between God and man. The Scripture has the authority over erroneous interpretations of those passages by the Catholic Church. The Church must submit to the authority of Scripture given to us by God. The importance of the passage in Luke is that Jesus aka God is teaching us how to pray, take note that Jesus says “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.” No mention of Mary or any other saint. The words of scripture override any false teaching propagated by the Catholic Church.
@@jonsouza1305 We are using different definitions of prayer. Pray, to Catholics, takes the Old English meaning of "to request" When we "pray to the saints" we are calling upon them to pray _with_ us. Their prayers are stronger after all. And yes, they can hear us. Those in Heaven are not dead, they are more alive than us, and are _with_ us, as shown in Hebrews 12:1
Why does it have to be written in the Bible? Not everything is in the Scriptures Where is the passage that says which books of the Bible were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit?
@@walterhigo7658 Then what is the standard? The Pope? I can see a process where the Christians in the first century accepted the writings of the Apostles and maybe one or two others. But the imposition of a central autocrat for the Church I cannot see especially when the the one institution was corrupted so badly.
@@morefiction3264 Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter: "You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" From the very beginning Our Lord assigned a LEADER, a "HEAD" for HIS CHURCH.
@@walterhigo7658 I read that and what I don't see is "You are Peter and you and your successors shall rule over my church..." What I do see is Peter being part of the foundation for his church.
@@morefiction3264 I'm not Christian or even religious but even I can see the obvious problem is if what you say is true then why did Peter's successors believe and practice this? I mean the Bible doesn't even say that Child Abuse is wrong but the Didache and the successors did. That's because they weren't mindless and looked at the commands AND the implications of said principles. In other words it was a logical extension in same way "Loving your neighbor" means "don't torture his goat for fun".
The only place the Bible mentions the papacy is 2 Thess. 3-4. All the older commentators believe this passage speaks about the establishment of the the papacy. Yes Peter was the main leader among the apostles but he had no special papal authority. Paul rebukes Peter to his face in Galatians 2 and says that Peter James and John SEEMED to be pillars. Nothing stood out about Peter over James and John. Paul only separates Peter because Christ used him to work among the Jews the same way Christ used Paul among the Gentiles.
The fact remains that Jesus chose ONE man (Peter) to exercise authority over the ENTIRE church on earth. He did it when He told Peter: " Take care of my sheep" (John 21:16). Who are the SHEEP of Jesus? They are CHRISTIANS or the CHURCH. What does "take care of" mean ? In the original Greek translation of John 21:16 (The gospel of John was originally written in Greek), that phrase "take care of" or "tend" is written as "poimane" which means "to Shepherd" or "to RULE" or "to GOVERN". By definition, you know that a RULER or a GOVERNOR is a person who exercises AUTHORITY. I am sure you noticed that the words of Jesus in John 21:16 were said to Peter ALONE -- He didn't say it to ALL of His apostles. Why ? Because Jesus wanted the church on earth to be under the authority of ONE MAN (Peter) not MANY MEN (the Apostles). It doesn't really matter that Jesus didn't specifically use the words "papal authority" to describe the authority He gave Peter. (the fact that Jesus DIDN'T specifically say the words "Pope" or "papal" doesn't make them EVIL or unchristian words). It doesn't change the fact that Peter had AUTHORITY over the whole church. In Galatians 2:11 - 14, Paul did not say that he disagreed with Peter because he did not believe that Peter had authority over the church. That is NOT the reason. Paul himself tells us that he disagreed with Peter BECAUSE Peter did something wrong. Besides, nobody says that it is wrong to disagree with someone who has AUTHORITY over you if he does something wrong. When you do that, it DOESN'T MEAN that you don't recognize his authority. You can't place Peter and Paul on the SAME LEVEL in the early church. Paul exercised his ministry among the Gentiles while Peter exercised his authority over BOTH Jews (Galatians 2:8) and Gentiles (Acts 15:7)
Yes, Paul wings it because he really has nothing to support the papacy. James was the official leader at this time. At no time did Paul say I'm the leader of all the churches.
I'm sorry, I can never quite get over seeing that [opened] bottle of Lagavulin on the shelf in the background behind Scott Hahn as people are debating scripture.
1:39. When Scott Hahn stated that Peter was either quoting or referencing Deuteronomy when he made his speech, this really sealed it for me that Acts 15 does not support the papacy. If Peter was indeed referencing this Old Testament passage, then he was using scripture, not his personal experience with Cornelius, for the council’s decision. Then James gets up and quotes from the book of Amos, which states that Gentiles will eventually belong to the kingdom of God too, without any implication of having to be circumcised or abide by the old testament Law. So both of them are utilizing scripture to decide that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to become part of the church. If anything, Acts 15 supports sola scriptura, not the papacy. I would have not noticed that, if Scott Hahn did not bring up Deuteronomy. 👍. Thank you!
No.... The church and authors came before the bible. They wrote and compiled the bible. You don't think they knew what they wrote? You dismiss their own understanding and interpretation and leaving behind apostleship and teaching them what they thought when they wrote those difficult passages? You might as well intelligence because intelligence. You forgo the bearer behind the message.
There was no bible. So no, that is impossible. If you substitute biblical doctrine with Jesus teachings. The answer is still no since Jesus didn’t give a definitive teaching on this
@@CPATuttle Yes there was. I think that what you meant was that there was no official canon. And seeing as how Paul wrote most of the New Testament... So you are saying that Peter taught things that according to the Bible, were false doctrines? Or are you saying that the "Church" just kind of made things up as they went along?
@@jessebryant9233 Check your sources. The first open cannon was a heretical bible from Marcion in late second century. When the events took place in the book of Acts, this was very early, there likely was not even any New Testament book even written yet. And if there was it would just be passed scrolls. Jesus had already passed authority to the church he started with it's structure of authority to make these binding decisions, with the holy spirit guiding them
@@jessebryant9233 Anyone can make assertions. Can you name me one bible that matches the 66 book Protestant bible before Matin Luther? If not, you've answered that question where the 66 book bible started.
How is James able to make an episcopal, pastoral judgement that was able to apply to the entire Christian church? James was the bishop of Jerusalem, and wouldn’t have had authority outside of his diocese. In fact, Peter was the bishop of Antioch (the region the dispute arose from). Given his supposed primacy and unilateral authority as vicar of Christ, why would Peter even need a council to begin with, as he had all authority over all of Christendom (and specifically over Antioch)? I don’t think Acts 15 disproves the papacy, but it certainly doesn’t offer much positive proof either - a plain reading of the text clearly has James’ judgement had some ‘weight’ that wasn’t conveyed by Peter, and that the council itself had authority, not just (or not primarily) Peter.
Hey Matthew - from your “Peace always...” statement I recognize you from some other comment section, maybe Jordan Cooper’s or Trent Horn’s Gavin Ortlund’s? Either way glad to see you here, hope you’re doing well brother and thank God that He allows us to partake in His true presence! :) I don’t believe your interpretation (or Dr. Hahn’s) is true to scripture. Can you point to a _specific verse_ in Acts 15 where Peter makes a sole declaration as to the rule of circumcision? His entire speech is descriptive, not declarative (as pointed out by James later on). Verses 7-9 specifically deal with the reality of what had already taken place to the gentiles in the church, and verses 10-11 don’t offer any sort of authoritative declaration either. Peter himself never says anything to the effect of “I, as vicar of Christ on Earth and sole holder of the Keys, declare that Gentiles do not need to conform to circumcision in order to be saved.” At best, he states a common belief of the apostles in his “we believe...” statement in verse 11. This may demonstrate the spokesman role / “first among equals...” of Peter in relation to the other apostles, but it certainly does not demonstrate any greater authority over them in this passage. If anything, James was the one who spoke with authority in these regards, not Peter. While the later spoke descriptively of things that had already happened (v14), the former (James) declared what policy would be going forward (v19). James (after appealing to the authority of the prophets/scripture in v16-18) gave the verdict after appealing to his own judgement (v19). Authority resides with the judge, not with the plaintiff nor with the jury. Even so, that doesn’t answer my problem. Why would Peter need to raise a council at all to settle a dispute is his diocese - especially if he were able to invoke Papal infallibility (or what would later become Papal infallibility)? Why call a council at all if the Pope is not bound by it and has complete authority over it? Is Peter so foolish as to waste the time of Paul and other missionaries of the faith by presiding over an entirely superfluous council that he has prime authority over? The papal interpretation of Acts 15 has too many flaws to be taken seriously, and without universal interpretation in the church fathers it cannot be reasoned from tradition. Obviously the magisterium cannot define itself by itself without external validation from scripture and tradition, and in this case neither scripture nor tradition give clear indication of the papacy or of Peter’s unique authority.
1. Can you please cite where you believe Peter makes his sole authoritative claim? Please specifically quote which of Peter’s words are binding. 2. Again, why would the bishop of Antioch need to call a council to deal with a problem that arose in his diocese? Especially if Peter possessed authority above an ecumenical council (as anti-conciliarist believe), there was no need to call a council to settle this dispute.
@@matthewbroderick6287 That doesn’t answer either of my questions. 1. What (specifically) was solely declarative in Peter’s speech in Acts 15? Can you please quote these verses? 2. Why would Peter, as bishop of Antioch and as Pope, need to call a council to settle a dispute within his diocese (that, according to the RCC, he had the authority to settle without the need for a council)?
@@matthewbroderick6287 Everything you say is 100% FALSE! Do not tell ANY student of the Bible that Pete was "SOLE" key holder, for Christ gave the very same prerogatives to them ALL just a bit later. Moreover, the words of the Text are clear. JAMES made the judgment, period, case closed. You Catholics are forever trying to sneak in all your unbiblical doctrines every chance you get, trying to make us believe God speaks with marbles in his mouth and leaves it to the clowns in the Catholic apologetics circus to tell us what he REALLY meant! Not on your life!
@@matthewbroderick6287 Oh thou fool. Scripture is MORE than sufficient to let us know what is needed for salvation. The fact that you say it wasn't AT THAT TIME, is because (HELLO!) the full content of the N.T. had not yet been FINISHED (!!!). Your argument then for Scripture being inadequate is beyond ridiculous.
They looked to scripture and the HS was also involved. Looks like sola scriptura to me anyway. Peter was not acting as Magisterium nor pope here. He simply recalled what happened in Acts 10 and brought it to the attention of the council.
This is an unwarranted distinction (Scott's point re what he sees as Peter's authority vs James' 'pastoral' discipline). Why? James says "I JUDGE" in v. 19. That is the key. Authority and primacy lie with the judge, i.e., James in this situation. Peter brings his experience with the Gentles to the table and offers his thoughts in vv. 7-11, followed by Barnabas and Paul in v. 12. But it is James who applies Scripture to these men's testimonies to render the final deliberation and seal the matter, allowing gentiles into the church. In other words, James functions as judge here, and not merely as someone with a pastoral concern. Sorry, this is terrible exegesis.
James presided over the Jerusalem council meeting. It was appropriate that he made the concluding remark. But this does not mean he was the chief leader of the whole Christendom at that time. Peter was the undisputed chosen leader. History showed that the Bishop of Rome was given the primacy just because Peter was the Bishop of Rome. This privilege continued up to this day and no Catholic Bishop question it. The Catholic Church has always recognised Peter and his successors as the chief leader of the Church of Christ on earth. The Catholic Church don't need the validation of the protestants on this historical fact. Protestants may whine against the office of Peter but that is not going to change anything. The successors of James or the Bishop of Jerusalem never ever challenged the teaching and governing authority of the Bishop of Rome. The new testament Bible we have today was treated as Scripture based on the teaching authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome. So, protestants can't get anything out of creating a storm in a tea cup.
I really don't see how this is a good argument at all. Because Peter lets James speak and people went quiet is so not convincing that you deduce Peter is Pope.
Hilarious about the emphasis of Peter has brought us to a breakthrough. I think Holy Spirit is the one that should be attributed as the one that brought that breakthrough through Peter and James. Bickering over which man was more authoritative seems to be like a modern way of saying I was baptized by such and such, or arguing over who will sit at His right hand, then claiming our own authority based on that.
Everyone recognized Peter as the one with authority over the rest You're just assuming Christ wouldn't want an authority, with no evidence to back that up.
How does the fact that everyone was silent prove anything? Ultimately, all the apostles and the whole church end up agreeing on Peter and James. Vatican I explicitly says that "such definitions [referring to infallible definitions] of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and NOT BY THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH, irreformable." How am I supposed to look at that and say, 'Yea, that jives perfectly with Acts 15: 22?" No one disagrees that Peter - since he was the first to confess Jesus was the Messiah - is the honorary first among equals. It does not follow that his successors are infallible as per Vatican I's definition. In fact, Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council states that "the most holy Church of Constantinople, [...] is the New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the 150 most religious Bishops, [...] GAVE EQUAL PRIVILIGES TO THE MST HOLY THRONE OF NEW ROME. (my capitalization)"
Job 38:1 "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, {2} Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? {3} Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. {4} Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1) New Testament Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach: "going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21). Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds “If Christ had intended His religion to be propagated and preserved by means of a book, can any conceivable reason be urged why He should not have written one?” Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds “The fact is, that this blind faith in the Bible, as Protestants have in the book, got together for us English-speaking people under King James, but trusted in as if it had been brought to earth visibly and publicly by an angle from heaven, is an act far more unreasonable and groundless than any which they even charge us Catholics with making.” The Catholic Church denies the inspiration of the New Testament, you, trying to use the New Testament and scripture to emulate a bible believer and justify the papacy is rich?
@@christendomempire5657 Thank you for your response and I am happy to elaborate my understanding further and look forward to your dialogue. Can we agree that Jesus Christ is God (incarnate in flesh), and inspiration means God breathed (God spoke the words, they are Gods very words)? The Catholic Encyclopedia does not claim that Jesus (God) did not speak to the apostles, however it does claim that "Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach"; Therefore the New Testament as written, was not given to the apostles by the inspiration of God with the specific intention of preservation in a book (Gods preserved word), and by writing these books (according to Catholic dogma) the apostles were disobeying Jesus (God); therefore, can we trust everything written in these books? A simple question for you, is the New Testament Gods word, and has God preserved his word (The New Testament) for Christians without error (can we trust what is write in the New Testament because it is Gods word), or do we need the Catholic church to tell us what in these books is true (Gods words) and what is untrue (corrupted)? Who is the authority, Gods inspired word (the Holy Scriptures) or man (the Catholic Church claiming divine wisdom in all matters of faith); this is what birthed the reformation, who do we believe. There is one God, may we serve him with our whole heart.
@@conformitytofact5224 Why do you believe in the Bible at all? The Bible cannot be traced to Jesus. For one, I trust the Bible because it was compiled by an authority that can indeed be traced to Jesus: the Papacy. The early Christians had no Bible and went by fine. There could've perfectly been no official Bible at all, and my faith would remain. I thank God we have it, it's a fantastic piece of DIVINE revelation, but my trust is not ultimately on these pages alone. Literature proves nothing without someone affirming those writings are legitimate. Hope this clears up our position. Cheers.
Neither history, tradition, or the Bible support Protestantism. That’s the case for the papacy. The Eastern Orthodox churches are just that, churches. The only unity, which Christ prayed for, is from Rome. It’s that simple.
There is no case for the papacy in history, in the Bible and certainly not in the Great Tradition. The Papal institution as we see today is not in the Bible. Period. There is no historical evidence that anything looking remotely like the papal institution as we see it today even existed in the first centuries of the Church and it certainly plays no role in the Great Tradition that is binding on all Christians. There is no evidence that Peter considered himself to be the Pope or that any of the other apostles had any notion of a papal office as it is understood today by Roman Catholics. It is a creation of the Middle Ages plain and simple. It is an extra biblical historical development.
@@paulsmallwood1484 I’ve done the research and I disagree. Pope Clement 1 was already enacting authority less than 100 years after the death of Christ. Growth of responsibility as the growth of the church occurs doesn’t disprove the papacy.
@@spaceminivanwanter Have you read the letter of Clement? It says the church gathered at Rome was led by Elders not a monarchical bishop. Even some Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge this. The person who wrote Clement may have been a secretary for ruling Elders conveying their message to the Corinthians. No one knows for sure. What is sure is that there is absolutely no reference to a papacy in this early letter. If there was a papacy as Roman Catholic apologists falsely claim, there would have been a reference to it in this letter. Not even a mention of Peter the alleged first Pope is made. Another early Christian document the Didache again makes no reference to a monarchical bishop or a papacy. Zero reference. You need to do some more research my friend.
@@paulsmallwood1484 I’ve read enough of the Church Fathers to know where they stand on the papacy, and where they would stand if alive today. People may disagree, but I’m not going to leave the Catholic Church because of the opinions of some dude on UA-cam.
@@spaceminivanwanter Look some dude on you tube, that is between you and God. Keep me out of it. I am simply responding to false claims made by Roman Catholic apologists that can’t be backed up biblically or historically. What you do with the information is totally inconsequential to me. I could care less. Someone with some discernment might learn from our little exchange. That is all I care about.
" that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." - yes Peter was in charge of preaching to the Gentiles and Paul was in charge of preaching to the jews.
@@RGTomoenage11 Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
@@RGTomoenage11 I never said there was more than one gospel. They were all in agreement. I think that verse just means that they were bringing it to different groups and might explain it in a different way.
Here's my feeling on the issue. Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have valid holy orders and sacraments. Both the Pope and the Archbishop of Constantinople have not only agreed that the other is valid, they've both blessed each other's ministry. Acts 15 may or may not prove anything. There are Scriptures for and against. There are Church Fathers for and against. There is historical record for and against. So I say: Go with whichever sect you feel most at home in. For me, I have zero desire to be in a church where one man has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. That doesn't set well with me. Never has. Probably never will. As far as I can see: 12 apostles; 12 tribes of Israel; 12 Judges prior to the institution of a monarchy. Acts 1 and Acts 15 do not seem to suggest anything like St. Peter having highest authority, at least not in practical expression. But interpret it however you see fit. Outside of a clear consensus in either Scripture, or Tradition, or history, I can't see why any Christian would want to believe in the Papacy. The only real reason I can see someone wanting to believe in the papacy as a divine institution is simply because one wants to remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church out of some fear that, by not doing so, something bad will happen to him. I think all sides of this debate fall prey to confirmation bias (I'm in the Orthodox camp btw). But hey. If you want to be in subjection to one supreme pontiff who for all intents and purposes cannot be excommunicated, even if he teaches things ex cathedra that are in direct opposition to two millenia of Church and Apostolic Tradition - and who can make judgments and institute harmful practices against the consensus of the Church body as a whole ... and you're fine with that ... knock yourself out. I've not seen a case where a powerful, centralized governing authority, consolidated in a top-heavy hierarchical power structure, ever forestalled catastrophic outcomes for the human race.
This is a silly discussion first off because they are referencing Luke's Acts of the Apostles! We all know that Luke's biased opinion was in favor of Paul...therefore making it a weak argument. Should have been the Acts of Paul instead.
The Matthew 16 passage that they use for papal authority is really pointing to Peter’s confession “ thou art the Christ “. John 20:31 and many other passages point that out.
And Christ said and You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my church and I will give you the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Who is you? Peter (cephas)
With Marozia and the pornocracy, the popes of the dark ages and renaissance, that alone is enough to tell me that the papacy outlived its usefulness centuries ago.
When Scott says that Peter is speaking 'from the Holy Spirit' in contrast to James speaking 'from his judgment' that is just a lie. Peter says nothing of the sort. He makes an argument from the evidence that God gave the Spirit to Gentiles, concluding with 'We believe...' This is why I do not trust Dr. Hahn. He goes on at length in order to turn scripture to his view, and only if you're very careful can you spot the errors and falsehoods he slips in. A plain reading of Acts 15 clearly shows Peter has no special authority, but if you're part of a church that requires him to have that authority then you've got to do some work to twist things around.
You do realize that your argument that it concludes “we believe” actually supports Hahn’s argument and shows precisely that Peter does have special authority.
John 1:42 And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: “You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” (Rock in Aramaic and is translated as Peter). Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:19 And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever YOU shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” John 21:15 Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” John 21:16 He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” John 21:17 He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep. Jesus Christ singled out Peter, not a perfect man, but the perfect man for the job.
wow time index 2:19 a blatant lie as that is not what the text says Acts 15:13-14 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. No where does James bishop of Rome and hat would be weird anyways since they were in Jerusalem.
you talk about going into a passage with presuppositions to attempt to prove the papacy. Scott sounds so intelligent amd he is. But it is a stretch to prove the papacy. I do not thonk it is wise to go to a passage like Acts 15 to prove something. The Catholic church does not even do this because they believe the Canon of Scripture was not closed. They do not believe in sola Scriptora. Extra Biblical revalation proves this more than the text of Acts 15. This passage is descriptive more than it is prescriptive.
There is no cope. Catholic saints have rebuked popes for their behavior in the past and St. Thomas Aquinas appears to this passage explicitly as proof that inferiors may rebuke their superiors when the faith is in danger.
In Acts 10 Peter does not understand the meaning of the vision God gives him. Given the importance of this vision, it is unlikely that, if Peter were the pope, he would not comprehend the message. Neither did the Church recognize Peter as anything special. In Acts 11 he is opposed by others and has to argue his case. Peter’s argument is accepted, but it is a case of one man among equals, not one man in a position of papal supremacy. In Acts 15 we find the great Jerusalem Council. Again, if anywhere Peter’s papacy should be recognized it is at the first great Christian Council, conceded as such by both Catholics and Protestants. First, Peter does not act like a pope; rather he and the others were involved in lengthy debate. Peter makes his defense but it is not Peter who has the last word, it is James. Peter gives his argument, but James concludes the matter and then the vote is taken. So if any one has supremacy it is James, the brother of Christ, not Peter. Also note that in Acts 21 when the apostle Paul comes to Jerusalem it is James who receives him, not Peter. Consider another problem. Catholic tradition holds that Peter went to Rome and founded the papacy. This would mean that Peter should already be in Rome when the Apostle Paul arrives. But in Acts 27, which involves very specific details about Paul’s journey to Rome, not a word is said about Peter. In fact, in Acts 28:30 it says that Paul spent two entire years at Rome in his own quarters, welcoming everyone who came to him. Now if Peter were in Rome partaking of the papal office, is it at all conceivable that Peter would not go and visit the Apostle Paul-at least once? If he did, would Paul fail to mention it-fail to mention that he was visited by the head of the Church? Why is it that Luke, the great historian of the early Church, who set down his record in exacting detail also never mentions even a hint that Peter is in Rome or that he has his papal office? Why is it also that when the Apostle Paul actually writes to the Roman Church, he does not even mention Peter? Peter is supposed to have been in Rome around 42-67 A.D. If the book of Romans was written in 57 A.D., this means that Peter has already been in Rome for 15 years. Again, is it conceivable that the Apostle Paul would not mention Peter or the great office of papacy that he now occupies? This is impossible if indeed Peter is supposed to occupy the position of the vicar of Christ as the head of the Church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions 27 people by name-but he fails to mention Peter even once.
I will just stick to the bible and what it says and contextualize it word for word - and you all can think God didn't get it right at first and needed a successive human hierarchy through out the years to get it all right.
I really wanted to see how the papacy and the Catholic Church are in the bible, but with all the arguments I've heard so far it sounds as if Catholic tradition is grasping at straws. There is no clear indication in the Scriptures that the Catholic is the one True church of God. Not that it is a false church. I believe Catholics who believe in Christ Jesus for their salvation are my brothers and sisters with a different tradition than my own. But, one thing that does concern me is how many Catholics take pride in being Catholic and will identify as Catholic before the will identify as a Christ follower. We're all still learning, however, and should continue to encourage each other to do so. Let us not create more division.
Wow - Catholics jumping through hoops backwards to justify the unjustifiable. And that's just Acts 15. What about Galatians 2 where the Apostle Paul rebukes Peter for leading people astray. More hoops to jump through.
Paul rebuked Peter's actions not his teachings, which shows their behavior is not impeccable which is the Catholic stance for Popes. Just because some Catholics use weird logic from Acts 15 doesn't discount the main arguments like Peter getting the keys and being named Cephas (rock).
@@alfonstabz9741 You're right, nothing will because that verse does not. Indeed, after that verse, Peter went on to become bishop of Antioch first, not bishop of Rome. So that verse cannot mean that. And that's all you got.
@@smart_joey_4179 So you're admitting that you don't know what the gospel is and have to have another, who claims to have been given authority from the same book you can't understand, what it is? Okay, so what IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to your source?
For anyone who doesn’t know Scott’s wife, Kimberly, also has a Master’s in theology, & she homeschooled their kids. I wish we all had that rich of a Christian education from the start. I think 2 of their sons are Catholic priests. I’m so jealous of those kids & of Steve Ray’s kids too.
Scott Hahn’s face at the end when Cameron says the passage doesn’t prove anything either way is just priceless!
Cameron is obtuse.
@@actuallicensedteacher1846 I haven’t seen much from him but after watching this interview I agree with you.
Cameron may be resisting the light
Yes haha. Scott just went through this incredible exegesis to show the contrary of Gavin’s position and that was his response haha.
@@joeypuvel1228 well now Cameron is Catholic so something must have convinced his
Dude Scott Hahn is so incredibly smart.
WOW! My mind is blown away by Dr. Hahn's explanation! I am a catechist in my parish preparing candidates for the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the course of my lesson preparations I have discovered that I am being taught by the Holy Spirit too. Thanks to PWA and other UA-cam Catholic channels, both my learners and I are growing in the Faith. Keep up the great work! May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.
Scott Hahn is amazing.
He talks a lot and when he's done... I mean, how does anything he said in this clip prove or disprove anything regarding the Papacy?
No
@@jessebryant9233 If you dont understand what this has to do with the Papacy I recommend reading way more scripture.
@@haronsmith8974
Hey, you tell me if you know so much... [crickets]
@@jessebryant9233 Answer my question in the other thread.
Dr. Scott Hahn possesses so much knowledge about the topic. Hence it is very hard or imposible to unpack all at that very same moment. Analyze every single sentence he speaks and you will notice how rooted in scripture his answers are. He is just at another level for all of us to even comprehend what he is trying to convey to this poor young confused soul! Let's pray for all of them so that God keeps on using all of them for our own good!
Very good video especially with Dr Scott Hahn explaining so you can understand.God Bless You.
Pastoral advice ≠ proving Papacy.
@@jessebryant9233 People in the youtube comments have failed entirely to disprove the Papacy.
@@spaceminivanwanter
No, it is impossible to PROVE the Papacy. Why should anyone try to disprove what you cannot prove?
@@jessebryant9233 because the Papacy existed before all other Christian denominations. That’s historical fact. The burden of proof is on the people saying it shouldn’t exist when it has for nearly 2,000 years. It’s also impossible to disprove the Papacy, why should someone try to prove what’s impossible to disprove? See how that works?
@@spaceminivanwanter
Even if that were true (and you can't prove or even argue that it is), that still doesn't prove the Papacy. As for your snark, no silly, that's not how this works.
You should have Catholic Truth as a guest.
Scott Hahn is a treasure!
He's great at bloviating and not actually answering questions. He has a great presence and voice-it sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but leaves me very dissatisfied, often confused.
@@jessebryant9233 Just because you are left confused and dissatisfied, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is not answering any question.
He sounds like he knows what he is talking about because he actually answers the questions posed to him with clarity and nuance.
If it's something in particular that he's said which confuses you then I'd be more than willing to try and help clear up any confusion.
@@csongorarpad4670
Confused and dissatisfied? That's because, as in the clip above, he tells says a bunch of words that don't actually answer the question. I mean, he attempts to validate the Papacy (in another clip from the same show) by saying, "Why not..."? Basically saying, "Why not just extrapolate that idea?" (Which seemed to be him assuming that Papacy in the first place.) Seriously? And yes, perhaps he "sounds like" he knows, but I don't think he does-as the clip above suggests. But you claim "clarity and nuance", so what would be an example of that in the above clip? If you're right, I'm obviously missing something... I just don't see 'doctrinal authority' (being true to the text) and the 'Papacy' as the same thing. So again, maybe I'm missing something...
@@jessebryant9233 I honestly don't know where to begin. I've no issue following his reasoning from start to finish so I couldn't say where, exactly, he specifically answers the question because the answer lies in the entirety of his answer. It'd be more easier for me to ask you if you consider his entire answer unintelligible or if there is a specific part which you have trouble following along with.
@@csongorarpad4670
Nice try, but no, the answer cannot be found anywhere in his reply. Fact is, neither he nor any other Catholic in the history of the world can validate the Papacy.
This is absolutely an amazing explanation of Acts 15!
Love this trio! I always learn so much!
Actually the James he is speaking of in this passage is probably the Lord’s brother James. 1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:19
St. James the less, son of Alpheus, was also called 'the brother of the Lord'. St. Paul specifically says that St. Peter and St. James, the brother of Our Lord, were the only apostles he met with in that Galatians snipit. (In this case, cousins german = hebrew brother, siblings can be established with 'sons of...,' but also referred to as bretheren) So... You are both probably right.
@@AceyBleach Catholicism does not accept that Jesus had a literal brother born of Mary. The Scriptures have many references to brothers and sister. The word in Galatians for brother means brother.
Jesus was an only child.
God bless all who loves our Lord and His words.
But YOU DO NOT love the Lord's words! For example, when he said to partake of BOTH bread and wine, YOU and everyone else in the Catholic camp, ONLY TAKE THE BREAD, contrary to his commandment.
So you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
@@mojo7495 my dear brother in Christ we do receive His precious Blood even though we are sinners but our blessed Lord in His mercy and love wants to feed us His precious Holy Body and Blood daily. “ O precious Blood of Jesus pour over this brother cover him and keep him under the mantle of Mary and the cloak of patriarch St. Joseph. Amen!
@@soroushfetkovich5084 You are deluded. and are nothing but a hypocrite. Jesus said to take BOTH bread and wine and you spit in his face by only taking the bread.
Second, you're also ignorant of history. In Trent's decree on the Eucharist, they hammered out that anyone who thinks Christ was speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper is "satanic, godless, contentious and evil". And since you think they were an infallible Council, well then that must be what God thinks of ME, so what right have YOU to call me a brother when your own church says it is not so?
Peter spoke first, which I think is telling, since if James is the leader, he should have been the one to stand up first and settle the issue once and for all yet it was Peter who settled the question and ultimately provided direction and afterwhich made everyone silent without exception. James only affirmed what has already been said. And in acts 5:29 the passage highlighted first the name of Peter and the fact the it was Peter who together with the apostles declare that they follow GOD and not men. And there are more instances in the acts of the apostles that highlight's Peter's leadership. Finally, Luke as a writer is also doctor, an authority ... people with problems and concerns come to him therefore he would be cognizant even in writing to reveal or just give context if ever James is the leader or someone in Authority to answer problems and concerns just like Paul's and Barbabas'... but it was not what Luke wrote, again Luke's writing highlighted Peter's authority and guidance and in which it seems James only took the cue from. Even today, in our corporate world or even just secular activities, the leader often than not issues the direction and guidance and overall plan of action but the managers are the one who administer to what the leader wants or advices. And this is what happened in acts 15 I suppose
Does anybody remember what probability threshold Cameron set for his conversion?
Good explanation of the proceedings
As I see it, if James had not agreed with Peter it would have been the first schism of the Church. Peter still the leader (as pronounced by Jesus) of the apostolic Church and James would have had to start his own breakaway church.
Explain to me what Cameron's numbers mean. Is .78 good?
It’s good but it’s cringe.
@@bman5257 Not how I would evaluate truth, but whatever brings people into the church.
@@nathanieldrain907 Amen. I had a sort of Bayesian probability mindset when I converted to Christianity. But I never gave it an exact number and told people I’m at 78% based off my calculations. It’s surprising looking back how many enlightenment presuppositions I didn’t even know I had.
Faith and grace 🟧⬜✝️
What about 1 Timothy 2:5
And
Luke 11: 1-3
What about them is that those verses contradict the idea that the Church or Mary functions as a mediator between God and man. The Scripture has the authority over erroneous interpretations of those passages by the Catholic Church. The Church must submit to the authority of Scripture given to us by God. The importance of the passage in Luke is that Jesus aka God is teaching us how to pray, take note that Jesus says “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.” No mention of Mary or any other saint. The words of scripture override any false teaching propagated by the Catholic Church.
@@jonsouza1305 We are using different definitions of prayer. Pray, to Catholics, takes the Old English meaning of "to request"
When we "pray to the saints" we are calling upon them to pray _with_ us. Their prayers are stronger after all.
And yes, they can hear us. Those in Heaven are not dead, they are more alive than us, and are _with_ us, as shown in Hebrews 12:1
More to the point, where's the passage that says the entire New Testament church shall be under the governance of one Bishop or Leader?
Why does it have to be written in the Bible?
Not everything is in the Scriptures
Where is the passage that says which books of the Bible were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit?
@@walterhigo7658 Then what is the standard? The Pope?
I can see a process where the Christians in the first century accepted the writings of the Apostles and maybe one or two others. But the imposition of a central autocrat for the Church I cannot see especially when the the one institution was corrupted so badly.
@@morefiction3264
Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
From the very beginning Our Lord assigned a LEADER, a "HEAD" for HIS CHURCH.
@@walterhigo7658 I read that and what I don't see is "You are Peter and you and your successors shall rule over my church..." What I do see is Peter being part of the foundation for his church.
@@morefiction3264 I'm not Christian or even religious but even I can see the obvious problem is if what you say is true then why did Peter's successors believe and practice this? I mean the Bible doesn't even say that Child Abuse is wrong but the Didache and the successors did. That's because they weren't mindless and looked at the commands AND the implications of said principles. In other words it was a logical extension in same way "Loving your neighbor" means "don't torture his goat for fun".
The only place the Bible mentions the papacy is 2 Thess. 3-4. All the older commentators believe this passage speaks about the establishment of the the papacy. Yes Peter was the main leader among the apostles but he had no special papal authority. Paul rebukes Peter to his face in Galatians 2 and says that Peter James and John SEEMED to be pillars. Nothing stood out about Peter over James and John. Paul only separates Peter because Christ used him to work among the Jews the same way Christ used Paul among the Gentiles.
The fact remains that Jesus chose ONE man (Peter) to exercise authority over the ENTIRE church on earth. He did it when He told Peter: " Take care of my sheep" (John 21:16). Who are the SHEEP of Jesus? They are CHRISTIANS or the CHURCH. What does "take care of" mean ? In the original Greek translation of John 21:16 (The gospel of John was originally written in Greek), that phrase "take care of" or "tend" is written as "poimane" which means "to Shepherd" or "to RULE" or "to GOVERN". By definition, you know that a RULER or a GOVERNOR is a person who exercises AUTHORITY.
I am sure you noticed that the words of Jesus in John 21:16 were said to Peter ALONE -- He didn't say it to ALL of His apostles. Why ? Because Jesus wanted the church on earth to be under the authority of ONE MAN (Peter) not MANY MEN (the Apostles). It doesn't really matter that Jesus didn't specifically use the words "papal authority" to describe the authority He gave Peter. (the fact that Jesus DIDN'T specifically say the words "Pope" or "papal" doesn't make them EVIL or unchristian words). It doesn't change the fact that Peter had AUTHORITY over the whole church.
In Galatians 2:11 - 14, Paul did not say that he disagreed with Peter because he did not believe that Peter had authority over the church. That is NOT the reason. Paul himself tells us that he disagreed with Peter BECAUSE Peter did something wrong. Besides, nobody says that it is wrong to disagree with someone who has AUTHORITY over you if he does something wrong. When you do that, it DOESN'T MEAN that you don't recognize his authority.
You can't place Peter and Paul on the SAME LEVEL in the early church. Paul exercised his ministry among the Gentiles while Peter exercised his authority over BOTH Jews (Galatians 2:8) and Gentiles (Acts 15:7)
God rebukes those He loves.... this doesnt mean there was no authority...
Yes, Paul wings it because he really has nothing to support the papacy. James was the official leader at this time. At no time did Paul say I'm the leader of all the churches.
I'm sorry, I can never quite get over seeing that [opened] bottle of Lagavulin on the shelf in the background behind Scott Hahn as people are debating scripture.
What’s wrong with that ??
@@crossbearer6453 Thanks for the reply. It is an occasion for sin for me - Envy.
@@williamreymond2669 ohh
I get it
Thanks
@@williamreymond2669 A Time for famine and a time for feast!
I guess not, Cameron is going through RCIA
1:39. When Scott Hahn stated that Peter was either quoting or referencing Deuteronomy when he made his speech, this really sealed it for me that Acts 15 does not support the papacy. If Peter was indeed referencing this Old Testament passage, then he was using scripture, not his personal experience with Cornelius, for the council’s decision. Then James gets up and quotes from the book of Amos, which states that Gentiles will eventually belong to the kingdom of God too, without any implication of having to be circumcised or abide by the old testament Law. So both of them are utilizing scripture to decide that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to become part of the church. If anything, Acts 15 supports sola scriptura, not the papacy. I would have not noticed that, if Scott Hahn did not bring up Deuteronomy. 👍. Thank you!
Not really. You just didn’t hear the message properly. You have Protestant ears.
No....
The church and authors came before the bible.
They wrote and compiled the bible.
You don't think they knew what they wrote?
You dismiss their own understanding and interpretation and leaving behind apostleship and teaching them what they thought when they wrote those difficult passages?
You might as well intelligence because intelligence. You forgo the bearer behind the message.
So if Peter was the first Pope, does this mean that he was in error regarding biblical doctrine?
There was no bible. So no, that is impossible. If you substitute biblical doctrine with Jesus teachings. The answer is still no since Jesus didn’t give a definitive teaching on this
@@CPATuttle
Yes there was. I think that what you meant was that there was no official canon. And seeing as how Paul wrote most of the New Testament... So you are saying that Peter taught things that according to the Bible, were false doctrines? Or are you saying that the "Church" just kind of made things up as they went along?
@@jessebryant9233 Check your sources. The first open cannon was a heretical bible from Marcion in late second century. When the events took place in the book of Acts, this was very early, there likely was not even any New Testament book even written yet. And if there was it would just be passed scrolls. Jesus had already passed authority to the church he started with it's structure of authority to make these binding decisions, with the holy spirit guiding them
@@CPATuttle
Nope. Check your source... And the Catholic canon is heretical, as is the Roman Catholic Church...
@@jessebryant9233 Anyone can make assertions. Can you name me one bible that matches the 66 book Protestant bible before Matin Luther? If not, you've answered that question where the 66 book bible started.
How is James able to make an episcopal, pastoral judgement that was able to apply to the entire Christian church? James was the bishop of Jerusalem, and wouldn’t have had authority outside of his diocese. In fact, Peter was the bishop of Antioch (the region the dispute arose from). Given his supposed primacy and unilateral authority as vicar of Christ, why would Peter even need a council to begin with, as he had all authority over all of Christendom (and specifically over Antioch)? I don’t think Acts 15 disproves the papacy, but it certainly doesn’t offer much positive proof either - a plain reading of the text clearly has James’ judgement had some ‘weight’ that wasn’t conveyed by Peter, and that the council itself had authority, not just (or not primarily) Peter.
Hey Matthew - from your “Peace always...” statement I recognize you from some other comment section, maybe Jordan Cooper’s or Trent Horn’s Gavin Ortlund’s? Either way glad to see you here, hope you’re doing well brother and thank God that He allows us to partake in His true presence! :)
I don’t believe your interpretation (or Dr. Hahn’s) is true to scripture. Can you point to a _specific verse_ in Acts 15 where Peter makes a sole declaration as to the rule of circumcision? His entire speech is descriptive, not declarative (as pointed out by James later on). Verses 7-9 specifically deal with the reality of what had already taken place to the gentiles in the church, and verses 10-11 don’t offer any sort of authoritative declaration either. Peter himself never says anything to the effect of “I, as vicar of Christ on Earth and sole holder of the Keys, declare that Gentiles do not need to conform to circumcision in order to be saved.” At best, he states a common belief of the apostles in his “we believe...” statement in verse 11. This may demonstrate the spokesman role / “first among equals...” of Peter in relation to the other apostles, but it certainly does not demonstrate any greater authority over them in this passage.
If anything, James was the one who spoke with authority in these regards, not Peter. While the later spoke descriptively of things that had already happened (v14), the former (James) declared what policy would be going forward (v19). James (after appealing to the authority of the prophets/scripture in v16-18) gave the verdict after appealing to his own judgement (v19). Authority resides with the judge, not with the plaintiff nor with the jury.
Even so, that doesn’t answer my problem. Why would Peter need to raise a council at all to settle a dispute is his diocese - especially if he were able to invoke Papal infallibility (or what would later become Papal infallibility)? Why call a council at all if the Pope is not bound by it and has complete authority over it? Is Peter so foolish as to waste the time of Paul and other missionaries of the faith by presiding over an entirely superfluous council that he has prime authority over? The papal interpretation of Acts 15 has too many flaws to be taken seriously, and without universal interpretation in the church fathers it cannot be reasoned from tradition. Obviously the magisterium cannot define itself by itself without external validation from scripture and tradition, and in this case neither scripture nor tradition give clear indication of the papacy or of Peter’s unique authority.
1. Can you please cite where you believe Peter makes his sole authoritative claim? Please specifically quote which of Peter’s words are binding.
2. Again, why would the bishop of Antioch need to call a council to deal with a problem that arose in his diocese? Especially if Peter possessed authority above an ecumenical council (as anti-conciliarist believe), there was no need to call a council to settle this dispute.
@@matthewbroderick6287 That doesn’t answer either of my questions.
1. What (specifically) was solely declarative in Peter’s speech in Acts 15? Can you please quote these verses?
2. Why would Peter, as bishop of Antioch and as Pope, need to call a council to settle a dispute within his diocese (that, according to the RCC, he had the authority to settle without the need for a council)?
@@matthewbroderick6287 Everything you say is 100% FALSE! Do not tell ANY student of the Bible that Pete was "SOLE" key holder, for Christ gave the very same prerogatives to them ALL just a bit later.
Moreover, the words of the Text are clear. JAMES made the judgment, period, case closed. You Catholics are forever trying to sneak in all your unbiblical doctrines every chance you get, trying to make us believe God speaks with marbles in his mouth and leaves it to the clowns in the Catholic apologetics circus to tell us what he REALLY meant!
Not on your life!
@@matthewbroderick6287 Oh thou fool. Scripture is MORE than sufficient to let us know what is needed for salvation. The fact that you say it wasn't AT THAT TIME, is because (HELLO!) the full content of the N.T. had not yet been FINISHED (!!!).
Your argument then for Scripture being inadequate is beyond ridiculous.
They looked to scripture and the HS was also involved. Looks like sola scriptura to me anyway. Peter was not acting as Magisterium nor pope here. He simply recalled what happened in Acts 10 and brought it to the attention of the council.
This is an unwarranted distinction (Scott's point re what he sees as Peter's authority vs James' 'pastoral' discipline). Why? James says "I JUDGE" in v. 19. That is the key. Authority and primacy lie with the judge, i.e., James in this situation. Peter brings his experience with the Gentles to the table and offers his thoughts in vv. 7-11, followed by Barnabas and Paul in v. 12. But it is James who applies Scripture to these men's testimonies to render the final deliberation and seal the matter, allowing gentiles into the church. In other words, James functions as judge here, and not merely as someone with a pastoral concern. Sorry, this is terrible exegesis.
if you said was true.
Then who is the successor of James now?
@@Janxiv91 2 Chron 15:3 "For a long time Israel was without the true God, without a priest to teach and without the law." It has happened before...
James presided over the Jerusalem council meeting. It was appropriate that he made the concluding remark. But this does not mean he was the chief leader of the whole Christendom at that time.
Peter was the undisputed chosen leader.
History showed that the Bishop of Rome was given the primacy just because Peter was the Bishop of Rome. This privilege continued up to this day and no Catholic Bishop question it.
The Catholic Church has always recognised Peter and his successors as the chief leader of the Church of Christ on earth.
The Catholic Church don't need the validation of the protestants on this historical fact.
Protestants may whine against the office of Peter but that is not going to change anything.
The successors of James or the Bishop of Jerusalem never ever challenged the teaching and governing authority of the Bishop of Rome.
The new testament Bible we have today was treated as Scripture based on the teaching authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome.
So, protestants can't get anything out of creating a storm in a tea cup.
I really don't see how this is a good argument at all. Because Peter lets James speak and people went quiet is so not convincing that you deduce Peter is Pope.
Hilarious about the emphasis of Peter has brought us to a breakthrough. I think Holy Spirit is the one that should be attributed as the one that brought that breakthrough through Peter and James. Bickering over which man was more authoritative seems to be like a modern way of saying I was baptized by such and such, or arguing over who will sit at His right hand, then claiming our own authority based on that.
Everyone recognized Peter as the one with authority over the rest
You're just assuming Christ wouldn't want an authority, with no evidence to back that up.
he was a leader but he did not have authority over them. He was First among Equals. Nowhere in scripture do we see that.@@crusaderACR
How does the fact that everyone was silent prove anything? Ultimately, all the apostles and the whole church end up agreeing on Peter and James. Vatican I explicitly says that "such definitions [referring to infallible definitions] of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and NOT BY THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH, irreformable." How am I supposed to look at that and say, 'Yea, that jives perfectly with Acts 15: 22?"
No one disagrees that Peter - since he was the first to confess Jesus was the Messiah - is the honorary first among equals. It does not follow that his successors are infallible as per Vatican I's definition. In fact, Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council states that "the most holy Church of Constantinople, [...] is the New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the 150 most religious Bishops, [...] GAVE EQUAL PRIVILIGES TO THE MST HOLY THRONE OF NEW ROME. (my capitalization)"
Job 38:1 "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, {2} Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? {3} Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. {4} Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
(1) New Testament
Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach: "going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21).
Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds
“If Christ had intended His religion to be propagated and preserved by means of a book, can any conceivable reason be urged why He should not have written one?”
Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds
“The fact is, that this blind faith in the Bible, as Protestants have in the book, got together for us English-speaking people under King James, but trusted in as if it had been brought to earth visibly and publicly by an angle from heaven, is an act far more unreasonable and groundless than any which they even charge us Catholics with making.”
The Catholic Church denies the inspiration of the New Testament, you, trying to use the New Testament and scripture to emulate a bible believer and justify the papacy is rich?
No where in the the passages you just quoted is the Devine inspiration of the new testament denied.
@@christendomempire5657 Thank you for your response and I am happy to elaborate my understanding further and look forward to your dialogue.
Can we agree that Jesus Christ is God (incarnate in flesh), and inspiration means God breathed (God spoke the words, they are Gods very words)?
The Catholic Encyclopedia does not claim that Jesus (God) did not speak to the apostles, however it does claim that "Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach"; Therefore the New Testament as written, was not given to the apostles by the inspiration of God with the specific intention of preservation in a book (Gods preserved word), and by writing these books (according to Catholic dogma) the apostles were disobeying Jesus (God); therefore, can we trust everything written in these books?
A simple question for you, is the New Testament Gods word, and has God preserved his word (The New Testament) for Christians without error (can we trust what is write in the New Testament because it is Gods word), or do we need the Catholic church to tell us what in these books is true (Gods words) and what is untrue (corrupted)?
Who is the authority, Gods inspired word (the Holy Scriptures) or man (the Catholic Church claiming divine wisdom in all matters of faith); this is what birthed the reformation, who do we believe.
There is one God, may we serve him with our whole heart.
@@conformitytofact5224 Why do you believe in the Bible at all? The Bible cannot be traced to Jesus.
For one, I trust the Bible because it was compiled by an authority that can indeed be traced to Jesus: the Papacy.
The early Christians had no Bible and went by fine. There could've perfectly been no official Bible at all, and my faith would remain. I thank God we have it, it's a fantastic piece of DIVINE revelation, but my trust is not ultimately on these pages alone. Literature proves nothing without someone affirming those writings are legitimate.
Hope this clears up our position. Cheers.
At this stage I'm not sure
Good video
Neither history, tradition, or the Bible support Protestantism. That’s the case for the papacy. The Eastern Orthodox churches are just that, churches. The only unity, which Christ prayed for, is from Rome. It’s that simple.
There is no case for the papacy in history, in the Bible and certainly not in the Great Tradition. The Papal institution as we see today is not in the Bible. Period. There is no historical evidence that anything looking remotely like the papal institution as we see it today even existed in the first centuries of the Church and it certainly plays no role in the Great Tradition that is binding on all Christians. There is no evidence that Peter considered himself to be the Pope or that any of the other apostles had any notion of a papal office as it is understood today by Roman Catholics. It is a creation of the Middle Ages plain and simple. It is an extra biblical historical development.
@@paulsmallwood1484 I’ve done the research and I disagree. Pope Clement 1 was already enacting authority less than 100 years after the death of Christ. Growth of responsibility as the growth of the church occurs doesn’t disprove the papacy.
@@spaceminivanwanter Have you read the letter of Clement? It says the church gathered at Rome was led by Elders not a monarchical bishop. Even some Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge this. The person who wrote Clement may have been a secretary for ruling Elders conveying their message to the Corinthians. No one knows for sure. What is sure is that there is absolutely no reference to a papacy in this early letter. If there was a papacy as Roman Catholic apologists falsely claim, there would have been a reference to it in this letter. Not even a mention of Peter the alleged first Pope is made. Another early Christian document the Didache again makes no reference to a monarchical bishop or a papacy. Zero reference. You need to do some more research my friend.
@@paulsmallwood1484 I’ve read enough of the Church Fathers to know where they stand on the papacy, and where they would stand if alive today. People may disagree, but I’m not going to leave the Catholic Church because of the opinions of some dude on UA-cam.
@@spaceminivanwanter Look some dude on you tube, that is between you and God. Keep me out of it. I am simply responding to false claims made by Roman Catholic apologists that can’t be backed up biblically or historically. What you do with the information is totally inconsequential to me. I could care less. Someone with some discernment might learn from our little exchange. That is all I care about.
" that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." - yes Peter was in charge of preaching to the Gentiles and Paul was in charge of preaching to the jews.
Paul went to Rome and so did Peter and James was in Jerusalem with the Jews…
@@RGTomoenage11 Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
whoops did I have that backwards
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr there’s only one Gospel.
@@RGTomoenage11 I never said there was more than one gospel. They were all in agreement. I think that verse just means that they were bringing it to different groups and might explain it in a different way.
Paul wrote to galatians in chapter 2...it didn't matter who anyone is..God shows no partiality.
Scott hahns son was a priest at my church
Here's my feeling on the issue.
Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have valid holy orders and sacraments. Both the Pope and the Archbishop of Constantinople have not only agreed that the other is valid, they've both blessed each other's ministry.
Acts 15 may or may not prove anything. There are Scriptures for and against. There are Church Fathers for and against. There is historical record for and against. So I say: Go with whichever sect you feel most at home in.
For me, I have zero desire to be in a church where one man has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. That doesn't set well with me. Never has. Probably never will. As far as I can see: 12 apostles; 12 tribes of Israel; 12 Judges prior to the institution of a monarchy. Acts 1 and Acts 15 do not seem to suggest anything like St. Peter having highest authority, at least not in practical expression. But interpret it however you see fit.
Outside of a clear consensus in either Scripture, or Tradition, or history, I can't see why any Christian would want to believe in the Papacy. The only real reason I can see someone wanting to believe in the papacy as a divine institution is simply because one wants to remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church out of some fear that, by not doing so, something bad will happen to him.
I think all sides of this debate fall prey to confirmation bias (I'm in the Orthodox camp btw).
But hey. If you want to be in subjection to one supreme pontiff who for all intents and purposes cannot be excommunicated, even if he teaches things ex cathedra that are in direct opposition to two millenia of Church and Apostolic Tradition - and who can make judgments and institute harmful practices against the consensus of the Church body as a whole ... and you're fine with that ... knock yourself out.
I've not seen a case where a powerful, centralized governing authority, consolidated in a top-heavy hierarchical power structure, ever forestalled catastrophic outcomes for the human race.
Heaven is literally a hierarchical structure, as was Judaism.
@@michaelibach9063
But why is the Church a hierarchical structure?
These are my thoughts exactly
@@michaelibach9063 explain heaven's heirarchy and then the relevance to now
@@michaelibach9063 That's a good point!
I think Cam's truth measure is broken
How so? Or maybe I should ask: What do you mean by that?
As of November 2022, his truth measure is completely fixed 😁
All glory to Jesus Christ
This is a silly discussion first off because they are referencing Luke's Acts of the Apostles! We all know that Luke's biased opinion was in favor of Paul...therefore making it a weak argument. Should have been the Acts of Paul instead.
The Matthew 16 passage that they use for papal authority is really pointing to Peter’s confession “ thou art the Christ “. John 20:31 and many other passages point that out.
And Christ said and You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my church and I will give you the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Who is you? Peter (cephas)
@@RGTomoenage11 Sorry but the Greek says “thou art petros, and on this petra I will build my church.
@@hirehammer925 What a silly argument that seems to still have such a firm grip on lesser minds. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Kephas it is.
Simon has declared.
Yes
With Marozia and the pornocracy, the popes of the dark ages and renaissance, that alone is enough to tell me that the papacy outlived its usefulness centuries ago.
When Scott says that Peter is speaking 'from the Holy Spirit' in contrast to James speaking 'from his judgment' that is just a lie. Peter says nothing of the sort. He makes an argument from the evidence that God gave the Spirit to Gentiles, concluding with 'We believe...' This is why I do not trust Dr. Hahn. He goes on at length in order to turn scripture to his view, and only if you're very careful can you spot the errors and falsehoods he slips in. A plain reading of Acts 15 clearly shows Peter has no special authority, but if you're part of a church that requires him to have that authority then you've got to do some work to twist things around.
You do realize that your argument that it concludes “we believe” actually supports Hahn’s argument and shows precisely that Peter does have special authority.
John 1:42 And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: “You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” (Rock in Aramaic and is translated as Peter).
Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever YOU shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”
John 21:15 Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
John 21:16 He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
John 21:17 He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep.
Jesus Christ singled out Peter, not a perfect man, but the perfect man for the job.
Pretty clear, I would say. Thank u for bringing this breath of wisdom into this contentious discussion.
wow time index 2:19 a blatant lie as that is not what the text says Acts 15:13-14 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
No where does James bishop of Rome and hat would be weird anyways since they were in Jerusalem.
you talk about going into a passage with presuppositions to attempt to prove the papacy. Scott sounds so intelligent amd he is. But it is a stretch to prove the papacy. I do not thonk it is wise to go to a passage like Acts 15 to prove something. The Catholic church does not even do this because they believe the Canon of Scripture was not closed. They do not believe in sola Scriptora. Extra Biblical revalation proves this more than the text of Acts 15. This passage is descriptive more than it is prescriptive.
He does have a great presence and voice, speaks so authoritatively, and yet... Well, some of what you said!
Wonder what the papist's cope for Galatians 2:11-14 will be.
There is no cope. Catholic saints have rebuked popes for their behavior in the past and St. Thomas Aquinas appears to this passage explicitly as proof that inferiors may rebuke their superiors when the faith is in danger.
@@ethanpace2225 amazing, that sounds so much like Vatican 1!
Jesus's conversation with Peter has absolutely nothing to do with any of the Papacy nonsense.
In Acts 10 Peter does not understand the meaning of the vision God gives him. Given the importance of this vision, it is unlikely that, if Peter were the pope, he would not comprehend the message. Neither did the Church recognize Peter as anything special. In Acts 11 he is opposed by others and has to argue his case. Peter’s argument is accepted, but it is a case of one man among equals, not one man in a position of papal supremacy. In Acts 15 we find the great Jerusalem Council. Again, if anywhere Peter’s papacy should be recognized it is at the first great Christian Council, conceded as such by both Catholics and Protestants. First, Peter does not act like a pope; rather he and the others were involved in lengthy debate. Peter makes his defense but it is not Peter who has the last word, it is James. Peter gives his argument, but James concludes the matter and then the vote is taken. So if any one has supremacy it is James, the brother of Christ, not Peter. Also note that in Acts 21 when the apostle Paul comes to Jerusalem it is James who receives him, not Peter. Consider another problem. Catholic tradition holds that Peter went to Rome and founded the papacy. This would mean that Peter should already be in Rome when the Apostle Paul arrives. But in Acts 27, which involves very specific details about Paul’s journey to Rome, not a word is said about Peter. In fact, in Acts 28:30 it says that Paul spent two entire years at Rome in his own quarters, welcoming everyone who came to him. Now if Peter were in Rome partaking of the papal office, is it at all conceivable that Peter would not go and visit the Apostle Paul-at least once? If he did, would Paul fail to mention it-fail to mention that he was visited by the head of the Church? Why is it that Luke, the great historian of the early Church, who set down his record in exacting detail also never mentions even a hint that Peter is in Rome or that he has his papal office? Why is it also that when the Apostle Paul actually writes to the Roman Church, he does not even mention Peter? Peter is supposed to have been in Rome around 42-67 A.D. If the book of Romans was written in 57 A.D., this means that Peter has already been in Rome for 15 years. Again, is it conceivable that the Apostle Paul would not mention Peter or the great office of papacy that he now occupies? This is impossible if indeed Peter is supposed to occupy the position of the vicar of Christ as the head of the Church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions 27 people by name-but he fails to mention Peter even once.
You forget James piggybacked off Peter. You also forget Peter eventually did end up writing in Rome. (1 Peter says this clear cut.)
@@jamesajiduah2001 Regardless, there is not a single Scripture in the entire Bible that supports the Roman Catholic teaching on the papacy.
I will just stick to the bible and what it says and contextualize it word for word - and you all can think God didn't get it right at first and needed a successive human hierarchy through out the years to get it all right.
Romans read the Bible?
I really wanted to see how the papacy and the Catholic Church are in the bible, but with all the arguments I've heard so far it sounds as if Catholic tradition is grasping at straws. There is no clear indication in the Scriptures that the Catholic is the one True church of God. Not that it is a false church. I believe Catholics who believe in Christ Jesus for their salvation are my brothers and sisters with a different tradition than my own.
But, one thing that does concern me is how many Catholics take pride in being Catholic and will identify as Catholic before the will identify as a Christ follower. We're all still learning, however, and should continue to encourage each other to do so. Let us not create more division.
Wow - Catholics jumping through hoops backwards to justify the unjustifiable. And that's just Acts 15. What about Galatians 2 where the Apostle Paul rebukes Peter for leading people astray. More hoops to jump through.
Paul rebuked Peter's actions not his teachings, which shows their behavior is not impeccable which is the Catholic stance for Popes. Just because some Catholics use weird logic from Acts 15 doesn't discount the main arguments like Peter getting the keys and being named Cephas (rock).
eeeeh, there is too much Eisegesis. sorry.
Hahahahahahaha, what a heretic.
So it proves Peter was the pope when he acts nothing like a pope because he's just that humble of a pope. Ok guys lol
will if Jesus declaration doesn't convince you Matthew 16:18-19 nothing will convince you about Peters primacy
@@alfonstabz9741 You're right, nothing will because that verse does not. Indeed, after that verse, Peter went on to become bishop of Antioch first, not bishop of Rome. So that verse cannot mean that. And that's all you got.
So in other words, the papacy is bullshit
In Acts 15:19 James makes the decision for the church and not Peter.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video
@@austinapologetics2023 epic pfp
tl;dr Peter gives the dogma, James gives the discipline.
@@hadriel1228 thank you
James was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore is the president of the council. But the bishop of Rome is the final authority.
Dr. Hahn, although brilliant, is too long winded.
What we do know is that nothing proves the Papacy.
So what church is the real church?
@@smart_joey_4179
Any church that preaches the gospel truth.
@@jessebryant9233Pontius Pilates famous words, what is truth? Which church that preaches their interpretation of the gospel truth is the real truth?
@@smart_joey_4179
So you're admitting that you don't know what the gospel is and have to have another, who claims to have been given authority from the same book you can't understand, what it is? Okay, so what IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to your source?
@@jessebryant9233 No Im asking you what church has the correct interpretation. Or are they just all correct?
You think Papacy only contradicts one verse of the Bible? LOL