'The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians' - Vatican I, Session 4; cf. Council of Florence, Session 6.
Read ch 4 of Pastor Aetornous carefully especially the last sentence. Here ill quote it: “The visible head of the whole CHURCH MILITANT”… he is the head of the Church Militant. NOT all three sections of the Church (Militant, Penitent, Triumphant).
The pope is the head just as Peter was the head here on earth. No earthly person or position can ever be preeminent over Christ; he is preeminent over all which means the Pope is under and subservient to our Lord and his will. Word wars are useless. You can’t always figure out the intent of someone’s words without judging the intent of his heart, which is for God alone. Some things are clear and when they are not, we go to prayer and trust God.
For those who believe Church teachings prior to the last 70 yrs this is what the Vatican council taught in 1870: "6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." To say a true Pope is not the head of the Church and to leave it at that is at best misleading and at worse heretical. Considering Scott Hahn is saying this to convince people to stop listening to him, is hard not to interpret his words as contradicting true church teaching. And a little before this was written: "3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter...Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam
Dr. Hahn is a man of good will to me but when he says that "the Pope is 'not' the Head of the Church" or that "Christ alone is the Head" and that saying otherwise is "heretical" perhaps he might not be aware of the following teachings: “… those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.” - (Catechism of Pius X). “Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church? A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.” - (Catechism of Pius X). “We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” - (Council of Florence)”. Also, the Church teaches us that though Christ is our Invisible Head, and the Pope is our visible head, we don't have "two heads", but that both constitutes "One" Head as pointed out in Mystici Corporis Christi, and Unam Sanctam states: “And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, [who is ] Peter and the successor of Peter.”
Agreed. And it even goes way earlier. I also strongly disagree with Dr. Hahn here. It’s hardly any different from the argument that Peter could never be the rock because Christ is the rock.
This is all a misunderstanding from imprecision in words. It’s obvious Hahn means that the Pope does not derive his authority from his own person, and that the pope is a servant of Christ. People, both Catholics and non-Catholics, think of the pope in material terms, as if Catholics believe the pope himself in his own person has some divinity. And that’s why we freak out when we find that a pope may be a regular, imperfect sinner just like anyone else. In some cases a pope may even be a “scoundrel.” But we need to remember that the office of the pope gets its authority ultimately from Jesus Christ, not it’s own divinity. We can tolerate human imperfection, it’s not going to destroy the church because it ultimately is ruled by Christ, regardless of the human creature that occupies the office at any time. There is no contradiction here between the pope as the vicar and visible head of the church, and Jesus Christ as the invisible head. It’s just a clarification to remember that the visible head is subject to the invisible head. The visible head doesn’t operate on its own authority and we shouldn’t mistakenly believe that and start demanding perfect popes as the only solution to the ultimate success of the church in its mission.
@@Chispaluzyou’d have to have read his books and listened to a variety of his lectures to know he meant that the temporal arm is subject to the spiritual arm. This is a theme in a lot of Hahn’s work. Sometimes scholars that are this prolific have a tendency to live in the world of their own work, which is understandable since they write and lecture and teach so much. They forget that their audience might not be as immersed and familiar with their terms. But Hahn is clearly distinguishing the fact that the pope is not divine himself, but rather is subject to the ultimate spiritual head of the church (Jesus Christ), and the authority of the pope comes from the authority of Christ. The pope does not have his own divine authority. So we don’t need to freak out that an imperfect pope=possibility of the church failing. It’s okay for the pope to be human, and for us to place our faith in the one from whom his authority derives so that we can stay calm, stay obedient, and stay charitable. The pope does not have to be a perfect “God” for Catholics to have confidence in him and know the gates of hell shall not prevail. That said, I am very well versed in Hahn’s work and I went to Franciscan U, so I understand why I could pick up on this (which is something many professors and courses at Franciscan have covered, not just Dr. Hahn), whereas the everyday listener may think “….what on earth is Scott Hahn talking about?” I get where the confusion comes from. But it is a fact that the pope is not Jesus Christ. The pope is not divine. And it is heretical to believe that. Dr. Hahn is right about that. Edit: He could have certainly offered more elaboration and explanation in this portion of the interview to make that more clear. But I don’t think it even occurred to him that he could’ve been misunderstood in this way, as he is very clear about being obedient to the pope as the vicar of Christ and head of the VISIBLE church.
@@Seliz463He said that Christ alone is the head of the Church. That doesn't mean he forgot to say "other than strictly visible." It's a heretical exclusion of the possibility of another head. Heretics historically like to add the word "alone" to things in order to make sure that there is no ambiguity to save the heresy.
The fret over Pope Francis confuses me as a new Catholic. Why does one bad pope mean the Church is compromised? Do we not have 2000 years of tradition to lean back on in times of confusion?? Ye of little faith! Even the Disciples themselves failed miserably even when Jesus was in their midst! And yet from them came great works!
So to factually summarize what happened here: 1) Scott Hahn, in a long conversation, makes a claim that is clearly heretical; 2) Pints with Aquinas chooses to highlight this heretical claim with its own short clip (this clip); 3) A multitude of people immediately point out the problem with this claim, both here in the comments and to Scott Hahn and the St. Paul Center (which Scott Hahn admits in his follow-up video); 3a) At some point, PwA edits out Hahn's heretical claim in this clip with an ad, but does not give any indication that it did so; 4) Scott Hahn issues a clarifying video in which he admits his claim was wrong. 5) Hahn's video was released almost 24 hours ago, and yet this video clip is still up AND there is still no indication anywhere from PwA that his claim is heretical. As Scott Hahn rightly says in his video, it behooves him when he caused confusion to clear it up. So why does @pintswithaquinas not feel behooved to clear up this confusion? This points to a much bigger issue that Pints with Aquinas should not be having "informal" long form conversations with theologians and then essentially presenting whatever is in these conversations as solid theological thought. There was a reason the church always carefully reviewed all writings of theologians and has condemned so many theologians for getting just one doctrinal point wrong. If PwA really wanted to provide solid theological teaching to its audience, it would stop these interviews with theologians and it would refer questions and issues to official magisterial teachings of the Church, and not to modern "thought leaders". Hahn's clarifying video: ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
By the looks of it, Pints Team’s agenda is becoming more and more questionable. Note too that while the Pints Team removed the heretical claim, it did not remove the part stating that the Pope is not the head of the Church, or make any further clarifications, especially in light of Dr. Hahn’s recent clarifications. A mere link to that would have sufficed. Good thing you already did that.
@@freda7961 Pints wouldn't want to delete footage with famous people. They do the same thing with debates. Fame is king. For example, Horn wasn't honest enough to hold his own against an honest Protestant asking about the infallibility of the Church because he sacrificed the doctrines on the papacy in order to save the perceived status of Francis with Fratelli Tutti, CCC, etc. However, despite his history of redefining and reinterpreting teachings from the Vatican, Horn is famous. Can Horn defend Catholicism against those who have legitimate questions and problems? Maybe not, but Horn brings views. Akin holds a strange philosophy on the possibility of the multiverse and "gap" creation stories, which the ChristianTruth channel noted was very similar to Mormonism. When Fradd had a guest on who converted from Mormonism and mentioned that a Mormon wanted to debate Mormonism vs. Catholicism, Fradd immediately said he would ask Akin. Akin is likely the worst man to represent Catholicism in such a debate because of his Mormonish position. That's not important. Akin is famous, just as Horn is famous. Lofton has 0 credibility in teaching Catholicism because he is a neophyte revert who still clings to heresies from the Eastern "Orthodox" he converted to when he doubts and rejects the infallibility of bulls and proclamations within the Council of Florence, claiming that they contain error. Fradd brings Lofton on to teach everyone about Catholicism even though there is a risk of a man who teaches his newest religion each time he converts leading people astray. Lofton is famous. Bring on Lofton. Cassman is a convicted fraudster who scammed his fellow parishioners and family members. He has no problem being dishonest, and that has been proven in court. For all his faults, Brother Peter revealed how dishonest Cassman was in the sedevacantism debate hosted by Fradd. Fradd was scandalized by the fact that a publicly known liar couldn't dishonestly get away with the deceptive contortions he is used to making work, but Cassman is pretty well known so Fradd got what he normally wants. Who cares whether what Fradd considers Catholicism was well-represented with Cassman any more than it is with Hahn in this video, Lofton in his, Horn in his debates or rebuttal to Brother Peter, or Akin with his really unusual and unorthodox compromise with the world. Fame is king. Salza has 0 credibility in teaching the faith because he claimed to be a Catholic while ascending 32 degrees of Kabbalistic occultism. He then renounced this life and led everyone to the SSPX, where he became famous through his book: True or False Pope? Despite the book containing outright libel and dishonest, Masonic redefinition of theological and ecclesiological terms, Bp. Fellay approved of this "luminous" work, so Salza got famous. Salza then dumped this position and held his third position in the public eye that he was going to lead people to, after years of ritualistically pulling men into occult degrees and then teaching people to go to the SSPX, which he now calls schismatic. Aside from his speeches telling men not to join Masonry, which are good speeches, all this man has done is lead people astray. However, that isn't important. It doesn't matter that his argumentation is still dishonest and that he is still very likely to lead men astray because it is hard to break a high-degree pact with Lucifer. What matters is that he is famous, and Fradd had to do damage control after prioritizing fame with Cassman cost him some credibility. As shown in this video and the other examples listed above, teaching the faith correctly isn't important. Fame is important. If anyone is interested in knowing what selling your soul looks like, you're watching the right channel.
I am a disgruntled protestant who has been seriously considering the Catholic faith. The current pope and the progressive global shift has given me pause.
Please don’t consider a Catholicism for political reasons. You’ll find that is just as imperfect as anything else, on a worldly level. And it’s not new-church upheaval and political scandal has been happening for two thousand years. Choose Catholicism because it’s true, and that truth means enough to you to transcend being affected by temporal imperfections that are a part of all earthly institutions and human actions.
Why? Look at history and you are bound to find things not to like about popes, even Saint Peter. I hope you come home to the Church, but not because you like the current pope. The Body of Christ is broken until the Second Coming. Come home and experience Christ in the sacraments instituted for a broken people.
The Catholic media is distorting Pope Francis similar to what they did with President Trump. I'm a convert and love the Catholic Church. We don't need to be concerned with faulty media and people with misguided ideologies. The Church is protected and is a safe refuge during these times. 🙏
Find a traditional church and give try to get into that community. It’s the ones fighting to hold tradition, become part of the struggle to keep Christ.
"But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of the Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar-nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church." -St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapter 76, part 7. isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
I think it is concerning when the Pope changes the church from within and seemingly is changing doctrine. This is not about gossip or obsessing over every word. On the contrary, many have given him so much grace, even against their own feelings of wrongness about his words.
The most enticing falsehoods or outright lies are mostly, but not completely, true. We must be on guard against that at all times, especially with those in the highest positions of influence, and test everything against Scripture like the Bereans did. We can not afford to be blind and dumb sheep when it comes to the living word of our Lord that came to us through the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ! In Christ, Andrew
Is "the pope is not the head of the Church" Hahn's considered position, or something thoughtless he said in the moment to downplay the problem with Bergoglio? Since so many look to him as a source of Catholic teaching, he has the duty to clarify. Of course, the Church teaching certainly is that the pope is the visible head of the Church, and that the headship of Christ and of the pope are inseparable. "Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 40)
everyone saying this is good advice or that they are glad he said this, think twice, the teaching that the pope is not the head of the church is FALSE, it is opposed to the church’s teachings.
As usual no one understands Catholic theology anymore. Everyone who knows their catechism understands that the Church has a visible head and it is indeed the pope. "Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister He it is who baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Savior appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors." That is from the Catechism of Trent. Bad theology is one that does not discern. Context people, context!
Love this perspective. I think in addition to obsessing a little less about every piece of news and praying a little more for the pope and church leaders, maybe we should also pray more for ourselves to be able to discern what the Holy Spirit wants us to focus on when we read or see something in the news. Discern if scrutiny is really from the Holy Spirit calling you to reject a flawed statement or action, or the influence of those around us, the evil one, and our own broken nature. Always pray for the Spirit to show you what is right and good in HIS eyes, and incorporate that in our life instead of dwelling in anger and unproductive conflict.
Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church and the One mediator between God and Man (Ephesians 1:22-23). And every believer is a Priest before God through the High Priest office of Christ (1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 4:14-16). So again why do we need a Pope, Cardinals, or Priests? Humbly offered in the spirit of Christian unity.
Friends of mine came into the Church ten years ago. They read and listened to alot of Hahn (I gave them Rome Sweet Home when they initially expressed interest). They stayed a few years, then went sede, attending a chapel led by a former SSPX who went rogue because they dared to dialogue with 'apostate Rome'. They came from a diverse fundametalist/evangelical background and already had a 'relationship with Jesus'. I have the impression that they researched which church had the best claim to being founded by Christ and decided it was the Catholic Church. I'm wondering if many such converts have a hard time staying in the catholic church when she and her members don't behave in a way that matches their preconceived notions of what it means to be christian. It's a difficult thing to describe! Their conversion didn't seem like a submission or surrender if that makes sense. When they joined, they were quickly frustrated and disappointed that not every letter of every law was followed (ei. constant complaining about liturgy, homilies, preists and even how Catholics could have different politics/social views). The short of this comment is just wondering out loud how hard it is for many converts to become 'fully Catholic'.
Specifically for American Protestant converts, we have been stewed in an individualistic mileau of supremacy of the individual. It is a hard thing to break. So much of American civic religion is Protestant at heart and it just exacerbates the relationship with a church authority that has the capability to bind you to certain beliefs. While I’m far more compliant with authority, just stating that rankles and causes my spirit to flinch from such a thing. It’s taking a lot of understanding the boundaries in exercising discernment and what is meant by being bound and what is allowed in a personal discernment process to come to what a pope defines as true. This is a hard thing and Pope Francis does not inspire trust in those that are very conservative.
@@vinciblegaming6817I am incredibly individualistic in terms of government and it's role in society. However, I'm the opposite in regards to my faith in Christ. I believe in there being organization set up within church that is outlined in the Bible. However, I vehemently oppose the papacy and the notion of papal infallibility. The pope has no authority granted to him in Scripture and is just as fallible as anyone else. The Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit.
@@vinciblegaming6817Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Your friend may have gone in search of adherence to Vatican I, and Catholicity concerning its Dogmas. This video shows how many in the church that your friend couldn't remain in actually reject Vatican I just as the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics/Polish National Catholics do.
That's a huge blunder by Scott Hahn. He says that "the pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is." This is a blatant denial of a dogma that has been repeated by saints, doctors, Councils, popes, and theologians for millennia. The pope is the visible head of the Church just as Christ is the invisible head. There are not two heads, but Christ and his Vicar constitute one only head.
I feel like this is just a misunderstanding. What do the saints say about the pope being the head, IN OPPOSITION to Christ? I don't think they would say that. I think Scott is saying that the Church (and the Pope by extension) is subservient to Christ, ultimately.
@@regandonohue3899yeah, there’s no blunder or heresy. The pope is subservient to Christ, as are all of us. Ultimately the pope is the head servant, but he isn’t the master of the house.
@@jmj.thomaswith all to respect to Michael Lofton, whose I have a great deal of respect for and generally think is right, I did watch Lofton’s video and I don’t think he is correct in this case. I’m going to trust Dr. Hahn’s decades of experience and scholarship, commentary, and theological assessment more than Lofton’s. They’re both merely human and both can err. Not putting either on a pedestal. But I think Lofton is in the wrong here.
@@Chispaluz Agreed. Dr. Hahn is in the wrong here. While I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hahn (after all, he introduced me to the intellectual side of the faith), the Pope being the head of the Church is not in opposition to Christ being the head. The way I see it, it’s similar in many ways to the question of who is the rock. Lofton has the ecumenical councils on his side too. So as between Dr. Hahn and the councils, is there really much else to think about? And I think Lofton was just being charitable by saying that Dr. Hahn must have meant something else.
The sede vacante thesis is not at all incompatible with the Church's teachings and Christ's promises. If it is true, there is certainly reason to hope. Almighty God will resolve this.
If ever there was a time for this wisdom from above, it is now. Thank you Dr Hahn! When we peel our eyes off the screens and turn them toward the heavenly, when we come as paupers to receive Jesus’ invention to dine with him, it is there that we will see the truth, beauty and goodness of the Catholic Church and become the peacemakers.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Curious here. Why didn’t you ask why I would consider such a distasteful thought? That is, if you are truly concerned about your brothers and sisters in Christ.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Unfortunately, your comment read like you were telling me your opinion and then invited me to agree with you. A question usually begins with a what, when, *why* , how. Nor do I consider your attempt at telling me that you asked me, a form of re-asking me; with any sort of Christian concern. Anyway, there are indeed a lot of delightful people in this world who seek answers to certain questions regarding the idea of faith, but when they ask questions, they seem to *always* ; not sometimes, but always receive ambiguity, condescension, revised history and/or ‘sorry, I don’t understand your question,’ or no reply at all. Explicitly, your reply to a comment that I wrote read as a *nothing* response to a comment that your host ignored, even though he parades himself as a *teacher* As a former Roman Catholic myself; re-seeking answers about the faith thoroughly understand that attitudes have not changed since I left the church 40 odd years ago because of the very same reasons that I am writing this reply to you. Ambiguity and non Christian replies regarding the Christian faith, by Christian actors. Don’t look at the contradictory actions by those called of God, but rather, bury yourself in the sacraments and prayer for those called of God. As I stated in my comment. Ignorance is bliss. Thank you.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf PS: I did indeed respond in a more positive light, until I re-read your your reply and realised your lack of sincerity. I now appreciate that you may think you are sincere, but, unfortunately, your comments do not read as well as you would like, bearing no resemblance to your recent declaration.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Fair enough Ed. There isn’t anything to forgive. You seem to believe that it is normal for one not to question their religious leaders, while I believe that it is totally necessary. One only needs to look at the state of the declining church and society in general and compare what is preached with what is practiced. Something does not quite add up; an inspection of historical civilisation will show the exactly the same parallels. Why would one choose to be ignorant of the failings of apathetic leaders? Do we not vote out apathetic civil authorities? A bishop, cardinal or priest should all the more be equiped to shepherd the flock in accordance with their professed calling from God. Anyway, if you cannot see that your supposed question was not taken as a question, even after being told that it was not understood as a question, well, you are correct in that there isn’t anything more to be said. I will continue to entice the teaching class to live up to their calling and have more historical and theological discussions with those who share an interest as such occasions arise. Good day/night; according to where ever you may dwell. If anything, your written communication bares a great deal of resemblance to how my family responds to those whom are not in their fold.
As far as everyone accusing Dr. Hahn of spreading heresy: This is a misunderstanding from imprecision in words, and frankly a refusal to interpret him charitably. It’s obvious Hahn means that the Pope does not derive his authority from his own person, and that the pope is a servant of Christ. People, both Catholics and non-Catholics, think of the pope in material terms, as if Catholics believe the pope himself in his own person has some divinity. And that’s why we freak out when we find that a pope may be a regular, imperfect sinner just like anyone else. In some cases a pope may even be a “scoundrel.” But we need to remember that the office of the pope gets its authority ultimately from Jesus Christ, not it’s own divinity. We can tolerate human imperfection, it’s not going to destroy the church because it ultimately is ruled by Christ, regardless of the human creature that occupies the office at any time. There is no contradiction here between the pope as the vicar and visible head of the church, and Jesus Christ as the invisible head. It’s just a clarification to remember that the visible head is subject to the invisible head. The visible head doesn’t operate on its own authority and we shouldn’t mistakenly believe that and start demanding perfect popes as the only solution to the ultimate success of the church in its mission.
No one is demanding a perfect pope. We could start with one that is actually Catholic and who doesn't bring pagan idols into churches. How about one who doesn't tell us that God wills that other religions exist and that it's wrong to convert people? As for this video; one should not need to interpret a person in any particular way when it comes to talking about clearly defined dogmas. The onus is on the speaker to choose his words wisely and not lead people astray.
It’s a difference in numbering. Tim Staples has a nice article about this on Catholic Answers. The first commandment “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods besides me” includes the command not to make graven images and to not worship any gods except the Lord. The idea is the same, i.e. have no false gods before the Lord, including graven images. Protestants do a similar thing with the last two commandments. The two commands “thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and “thou shall not covet your neighbor’s goods are “consolidated”‘into one commandment “thou shall not covet.” The idea is the same (do not covet) so they combine this into one commandment. If you count the “thou shall’s and thou shall nots” listed in the Ten Commandments discourse, there are actually 13. You need to combine them into ten somehow based on intent and idea. Both the Catholic and Protestant church’s Ten Commandments encompass the full intent of the commands of God.
Here’s an idea….. Why not promote TLM instead of restricting it, how about not talking about climate change with radical leftists and talking about Christ. Maybe call out the American Bishops that are using Catholic Charities with the Feds in the USA supporting illegal immigration. Try to find the good but don’t put your head in the sand and not request accountability. Im disappointed in this because the message is not even to ignore it, Scott seems to be calling for ignorance.
I love my brothers and sisters in the Catholic church but the Government and religion go hand in hand at the Vatican. I have never liked that nor figured out why that's the case. Jesus certainly didn't intend for this.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf I agree but what business does the pope have influencing borders, immigration and climate agendas (which are all against God given rights)?
I didn’t get that message from what he said. I gather he’s saying we’ve had plenty of bad popes and we will have plenty more, because the earthly part of the church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people. And it’s important for us to not get obsessed with things we can’t fix, nor forget that no amount of sin or imperfection can ultimately thwart God’s will. The Vicar of the church is not the actual head. We can handle some (or a lot) of bad management. We have done so for two thousand years. But at the end of the day that doesn’t make or break the faith, the church, or the truth. We also forget that the portion of the church on earth is such a small part of it. A drop in the ocean. It doesn’t have to be perfect to be a perfect instrument of our salvation. So the most important thing is to focus on our own faith and families, where our day to day actions actually have a tremendous impact.
Defending the papacy is a never ending challenge. Papal infallibility, supremacy, and development of doctrine are self contradictory. Calling popes antipopes is just proof of this.
Why call the Pope the Holy Father when he is a sinner just like the rest of us? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Holy as "...perfect in goodness and righteousness; DIVINE" It seems to me the only one worthy of the title, "Holy Father" is God Himself.
Well, U can pray for the Pope if U like. U want the papacy to be a sort voice of the conscience on earth but religion is not an end in itself. I think God has been giving ample evidence of that. The Pope is not my Savior. Ultimately we are each responsible for the choices we make and will give an account of it before God. Rather than having to read tons & tons & tons of theological works only to end up at the same point we started.
The Church of Christ could be in the basement of a ghetto where an AA meeting is held. And it is there. The Vatican's money and decor cannot buy Christ's presence. Only an open repenting heart.
I’m not sure why people would leave to become Eastern Orthodox. Theologically Lutherans are in between and would make the most sense for Catholics. Yes I believe all are a part of the body of Christ, but it’s just baffling to me that this is what Catholics always say. It’s like the fact that there is a strong ecclesial body that is resistant to reform is more important to them than the actual doctrines. I’m not just saying that because I’m a Lutheran, but because I legitimately don’t understand how someone can go from affirming dogmas which call one who believes in justification by faith alone an anathema (Canon 9 Council of Trent) to a tradition which goes beyond Luther in faith alone rejecting reason.
Perhaps we are discovering that this isnt the model of church Christ wanted. Perhaps an apostolic church of distributed authority rather than a singular Petrine church with centralised authority was what Jesus was calling us to? Yes, there is always the role of Peter as the figurehead, chairman, and final casting vote amongst the congregation of apostleships but in these modern times when the Pope is accountable to the people and his centralised authority can be questionned it certainly puts the church at risk of becoming a cult. Pope Francis isnt effective and certainly is divisive and look what problems that brings uppn the church. If the Popes of history had been subject to public scrutiny like today, the church would not have survived in this form. Isnt that an argument against centralised authority in this matter, that the institution can only and did only survive absent external accountability and inspection?
It's the Catholic media and ultra right (and left but they're obvious) causing all the chaos. Michael Lofton has a UA-cam channel called, "Reason & Theology" that is very clear about the Church and her teachings and how the media is distorting and doing so much damage. I'm a convert and love the Catholic Church. It's been very disappointing that so many supposed theogians aren't out there teaching but just helping to feed the drama.
I know exactly how you feel. I won't share what my position in the faith but *Pray the 7 sorrows of Mary daily *Pray the 15 decades rosary everyday. You'll understand why Mother Mary's heart breaks until today.
'The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians' - Vatican I, Session 4; cf. Council of Florence, Session 6.
But in the modernist church, we don't need to listen to such things. That's rigidity, as our pal jorge would say.
Read ch 4 of Pastor Aetornous carefully especially the last sentence. Here ill quote it:
“The visible head of the whole CHURCH MILITANT”… he is the head of the Church Militant. NOT all three sections of the Church (Militant, Penitent, Triumphant).
The pope is the head just as Peter was the head here on earth. No earthly person or position can ever be preeminent over Christ; he is preeminent over all which means the Pope is under and subservient to our Lord and his will. Word wars are useless. You can’t always figure out the intent of someone’s words without judging the intent of his heart, which is for God alone. Some things are clear and when they are not, we go to prayer and trust God.
For those who believe Church teachings prior to the last 70 yrs this is what the Vatican council taught in 1870:
"6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."
To say a true Pope is not the head of the Church and to leave it at that is at best misleading and at worse heretical. Considering Scott Hahn is saying this to convince people to stop listening to him, is hard not to interpret his words as contradicting true church teaching.
And a little before this was written:
"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
Kudos to Dr. Hahn for his retraction!
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter...Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam
ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
Kudos to Dr. Hahn for his retraction!
Dr. Hahn is a man of good will to me but when he says that "the Pope is 'not' the Head of the Church" or that "Christ alone is the Head" and that saying otherwise is "heretical" perhaps he might not be aware of the following teachings: “… those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.” - (Catechism of Pius X).
“Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.” - (Catechism of Pius X).
“We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” - (Council of Florence)”.
Also, the Church teaches us that though Christ is our Invisible Head, and the Pope is our visible head, we don't have "two heads", but that both constitutes "One" Head as pointed out in Mystici Corporis Christi, and Unam Sanctam states: “And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, [who is ] Peter and the successor of Peter.”
Agreed. And it even goes way earlier. I also strongly disagree with Dr. Hahn here. It’s hardly any different from the argument that Peter could never be the rock because Christ is the rock.
This is all a misunderstanding from imprecision in words. It’s obvious Hahn means that the Pope does not derive his authority from his own person, and that the pope is a servant of Christ.
People, both Catholics and non-Catholics, think of the pope in material terms, as if Catholics believe the pope himself in his own person has some divinity. And that’s why we freak out when we find that a pope may be a regular, imperfect sinner just like anyone else. In some cases a pope may even be a “scoundrel.” But we need to remember that the office of the pope gets its authority ultimately from Jesus Christ, not it’s own divinity. We can tolerate human imperfection, it’s not going to destroy the church because it ultimately is ruled by Christ, regardless of the human creature that occupies the office at any time.
There is no contradiction here between the pope as the vicar and visible head of the church, and Jesus Christ as the invisible head. It’s just a clarification to remember that the visible head is subject to the invisible head. The visible head doesn’t operate on its own authority and we shouldn’t mistakenly believe that and start demanding perfect popes as the only solution to the ultimate success of the church in its mission.
@@Chispaluzyou’d have to have read his books and listened to a variety of his lectures to know he meant that the temporal arm is subject to the spiritual arm. This is a theme in a lot of Hahn’s work. Sometimes scholars that are this prolific have a tendency to live in the world of their own work, which is understandable since they write and lecture and teach so much. They forget that their audience might not be as immersed and familiar with their terms. But Hahn is clearly distinguishing the fact that the pope is not divine himself, but rather is subject to the ultimate spiritual head of the church (Jesus Christ), and the authority of the pope comes from the authority of Christ. The pope does not have his own divine authority. So we don’t need to freak out that an imperfect pope=possibility of the church failing. It’s okay for the pope to be human, and for us to place our faith in the one from whom his authority derives so that we can stay calm, stay obedient, and stay charitable. The pope does not have to be a perfect “God” for Catholics to have confidence in him and know the gates of hell shall not prevail.
That said, I am very well versed in Hahn’s work and I went to Franciscan U, so I understand why I could pick up on this (which is something many professors and courses at Franciscan have covered, not just Dr. Hahn), whereas the everyday listener may think “….what on earth is Scott Hahn talking about?” I get where the confusion comes from.
But it is a fact that the pope is not Jesus Christ. The pope is not divine. And it is heretical to believe that. Dr. Hahn is right about that. Edit: He could have certainly offered more elaboration and explanation in this portion of the interview to make that more clear. But I don’t think it even occurred to him that he could’ve been misunderstood in this way, as he is very clear about being obedient to the pope as the vicar of Christ and head of the VISIBLE church.
@@Seliz463He said that Christ alone is the head of the Church. That doesn't mean he forgot to say "other than strictly visible." It's a heretical exclusion of the possibility of another head. Heretics historically like to add the word "alone" to things in order to make sure that there is no ambiguity to save the heresy.
ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
Kudos to Dr. Hahn for his retraction!
The fret over Pope Francis confuses me as a new Catholic. Why does one bad pope mean the Church is compromised? Do we not have 2000 years of tradition to lean back on in times of confusion?? Ye of little faith! Even the Disciples themselves failed miserably even when Jesus was in their midst! And yet from them came great works!
So to factually summarize what happened here: 1) Scott Hahn, in a long conversation, makes a claim that is clearly heretical; 2) Pints with Aquinas chooses to highlight this heretical claim with its own short clip (this clip); 3) A multitude of people immediately point out the problem with this claim, both here in the comments and to Scott Hahn and the St. Paul Center (which Scott Hahn admits in his follow-up video); 3a) At some point, PwA edits out Hahn's heretical claim in this clip with an ad, but does not give any indication that it did so; 4) Scott Hahn issues a clarifying video in which he admits his claim was wrong. 5) Hahn's video was released almost 24 hours ago, and yet this video clip is still up AND there is still no indication anywhere from PwA that his claim is heretical.
As Scott Hahn rightly says in his video, it behooves him when he caused confusion to clear it up.
So why does @pintswithaquinas not feel behooved to clear up this confusion?
This points to a much bigger issue that Pints with Aquinas should not be having "informal" long form conversations with theologians and then essentially presenting whatever is in these conversations as solid theological thought. There was a reason the church always carefully reviewed all writings of theologians and has condemned so many theologians for getting just one doctrinal point wrong. If PwA really wanted to provide solid theological teaching to its audience, it would stop these interviews with theologians and it would refer questions and issues to official magisterial teachings of the Church, and not to modern "thought leaders".
Hahn's clarifying video: ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
By the looks of it, Pints Team’s agenda is becoming more and more questionable. Note too that while the Pints Team removed the heretical claim, it did not remove the part stating that the Pope is not the head of the Church, or make any further clarifications, especially in light of Dr. Hahn’s recent clarifications. A mere link to that would have sufficed. Good thing you already did that.
@@freda7961 Pints wouldn't want to delete footage with famous people. They do the same thing with debates. Fame is king.
For example, Horn wasn't honest enough to hold his own against an honest Protestant asking about the infallibility of the Church because he sacrificed the doctrines on the papacy in order to save the perceived status of Francis with Fratelli Tutti, CCC, etc. However, despite his history of redefining and reinterpreting teachings from the Vatican, Horn is famous. Can Horn defend Catholicism against those who have legitimate questions and problems? Maybe not, but Horn brings views.
Akin holds a strange philosophy on the possibility of the multiverse and "gap" creation stories, which the ChristianTruth channel noted was very similar to Mormonism. When Fradd had a guest on who converted from Mormonism and mentioned that a Mormon wanted to debate Mormonism vs. Catholicism, Fradd immediately said he would ask Akin. Akin is likely the worst man to represent Catholicism in such a debate because of his Mormonish position. That's not important. Akin is famous, just as Horn is famous.
Lofton has 0 credibility in teaching Catholicism because he is a neophyte revert who still clings to heresies from the Eastern "Orthodox" he converted to when he doubts and rejects the infallibility of bulls and proclamations within the Council of Florence, claiming that they contain error. Fradd brings Lofton on to teach everyone about Catholicism even though there is a risk of a man who teaches his newest religion each time he converts leading people astray. Lofton is famous. Bring on Lofton.
Cassman is a convicted fraudster who scammed his fellow parishioners and family members. He has no problem being dishonest, and that has been proven in court. For all his faults, Brother Peter revealed how dishonest Cassman was in the sedevacantism debate hosted by Fradd. Fradd was scandalized by the fact that a publicly known liar couldn't dishonestly get away with the deceptive contortions he is used to making work, but Cassman is pretty well known so Fradd got what he normally wants. Who cares whether what Fradd considers Catholicism was well-represented with Cassman any more than it is with Hahn in this video, Lofton in his, Horn in his debates or rebuttal to Brother Peter, or Akin with his really unusual and unorthodox compromise with the world. Fame is king.
Salza has 0 credibility in teaching the faith because he claimed to be a Catholic while ascending 32 degrees of Kabbalistic occultism. He then renounced this life and led everyone to the SSPX, where he became famous through his book: True or False Pope? Despite the book containing outright libel and dishonest, Masonic redefinition of theological and ecclesiological terms, Bp. Fellay approved of this "luminous" work, so Salza got famous. Salza then dumped this position and held his third position in the public eye that he was going to lead people to, after years of ritualistically pulling men into occult degrees and then teaching people to go to the SSPX, which he now calls schismatic. Aside from his speeches telling men not to join Masonry, which are good speeches, all this man has done is lead people astray. However, that isn't important. It doesn't matter that his argumentation is still dishonest and that he is still very likely to lead men astray because it is hard to break a high-degree pact with Lucifer. What matters is that he is famous, and Fradd had to do damage control after prioritizing fame with Cassman cost him some credibility.
As shown in this video and the other examples listed above, teaching the faith correctly isn't important. Fame is important.
If anyone is interested in knowing what selling your soul looks like, you're watching the right channel.
I am a disgruntled protestant who has been seriously considering the Catholic faith. The current pope and the progressive global shift has given me pause.
Please don’t consider a Catholicism for political reasons. You’ll find that is just as imperfect as anything else, on a worldly level. And it’s not new-church upheaval and political scandal has been happening for two thousand years. Choose Catholicism because it’s true, and that truth means enough to you to transcend being affected by temporal imperfections that are a part of all earthly institutions and human actions.
Why? Look at history and you are bound to find things not to like about popes, even Saint Peter. I hope you come home to the Church, but not because you like the current pope. The Body of Christ is broken until the Second Coming. Come home and experience Christ in the sacraments instituted for a broken people.
The Catholic media is distorting Pope Francis similar to what they did with President Trump. I'm a convert and love the Catholic Church. We don't need to be concerned with faulty media and people with misguided ideologies. The Church is protected and is a safe refuge during these times. 🙏
Okay. Remain prot.
Find a traditional church and give try to get into that community. It’s the ones fighting to hold tradition, become part of the struggle to keep Christ.
We never invented truth., we can only acknowledge it. We invent lies.
Did you edit out his claim that it is “heretical” to say he is the head of the Church?
"But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of the Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar-nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church."
-St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapter 76, part 7. isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
Kudos to Dr. Hahn for his retraction!
I think it is concerning when the Pope changes the church from within and seemingly is changing doctrine. This is not about gossip or obsessing over every word. On the contrary, many have given him so much grace, even against their own feelings of wrongness about his words.
Dr. Hahn, surprisingly, got it wrong! St. Pius X to Theodor Herzl 1904: “As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise.”
ua-cam.com/video/iIEy3Z-eFXU/v-deo.html
Kudos to Dr. Hahn for his retraction!
The most enticing falsehoods or outright lies are mostly, but not completely, true. We must be on guard against that at all times, especially with those in the highest positions of influence, and test everything against Scripture like the Bereans did. We can not afford to be blind and dumb sheep when it comes to the living word of our Lord that came to us through the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ!
In Christ,
Andrew
Is "the pope is not the head of the Church" Hahn's considered position, or something thoughtless he said in the moment to downplay the problem with Bergoglio? Since so many look to him as a source of Catholic teaching, he has the duty to clarify.
Of course, the Church teaching certainly is that the pope is the visible head of the Church, and that the headship of Christ and of the pope are inseparable. "Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 40)
YT > TRADCAST EXPRESS 180: On Francis, Scott Hahn
Devastating.
everyone saying this is good advice or that they are glad he said this, think twice, the teaching that the pope is not the head of the church is FALSE, it is opposed to the church’s teachings.
As usual no one understands Catholic theology anymore. Everyone who knows their catechism understands that the Church has a visible head and it is indeed the pope. "Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister He it is who baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Savior appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors." That is from the Catechism of Trent. Bad theology is one that does not discern. Context people, context!
Love this perspective. I think in addition to obsessing a little less about every piece of news and praying a little more for the pope and church leaders, maybe we should also pray more for ourselves to be able to discern what the Holy Spirit wants us to focus on when we read or see something in the news. Discern if scrutiny is really from the Holy Spirit calling you to reject a flawed statement or action, or the influence of those around us, the evil one, and our own broken nature. Always pray for the Spirit to show you what is right and good in HIS eyes, and incorporate that in our life instead of dwelling in anger and unproductive conflict.
I recommend the channel Reason and Theology for clarity on Dr. Scott Hahns words on this as well.
Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church and the One mediator between God and Man (Ephesians 1:22-23). And every believer is a Priest before God through the High Priest office of Christ (1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 4:14-16). So again why do we need a Pope, Cardinals, or Priests? Humbly offered in the spirit of Christian unity.
For Catholics if there are no priests, there are NO sacraments.
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan Is that a bad thing? 🙂
Friends of mine came into the Church ten years ago. They read and listened to alot of Hahn (I gave them Rome Sweet Home when they initially expressed interest). They stayed a few years, then went sede, attending a chapel led by a former SSPX who went rogue because they dared to dialogue with 'apostate Rome'. They came from a diverse fundametalist/evangelical background and already had a 'relationship with Jesus'. I have the impression that they researched which church had the best claim to being founded by Christ and decided it was the Catholic Church. I'm wondering if many such converts have a hard time staying in the catholic church when she and her members don't behave in a way that matches their preconceived notions of what it means to be christian. It's a difficult thing to describe! Their conversion didn't seem like a submission or surrender if that makes sense. When they joined, they were quickly frustrated and disappointed that not every letter of every law was followed (ei. constant complaining about liturgy, homilies, preists and even how Catholics could have different politics/social views). The short of this comment is just wondering out loud how hard it is for many converts to become 'fully Catholic'.
Specifically for American Protestant converts, we have been stewed in an individualistic mileau of supremacy of the individual. It is a hard thing to break. So much of American civic religion is Protestant at heart and it just exacerbates the relationship with a church authority that has the capability to bind you to certain beliefs.
While I’m far more compliant with authority, just stating that rankles and causes my spirit to flinch from such a thing. It’s taking a lot of understanding the boundaries in exercising discernment and what is meant by being bound and what is allowed in a personal discernment process to come to what a pope defines as true.
This is a hard thing and Pope Francis does not inspire trust in those that are very conservative.
@@vinciblegaming6817I am incredibly individualistic in terms of government and it's role in society. However, I'm the opposite in regards to my faith in Christ. I believe in there being organization set up within church that is outlined in the Bible. However, I vehemently oppose the papacy and the notion of papal infallibility. The pope has no authority granted to him in Scripture and is just as fallible as anyone else. The Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit.
@@vinciblegaming6817Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Your friend may have gone in search of adherence to Vatican I, and Catholicity concerning its Dogmas. This video shows how many in the church that your friend couldn't remain in actually reject Vatican I just as the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics/Polish National Catholics do.
What a beautiful answer
Great view. “Break out of the straight jacket.”
I learned a lot on this youtube channel ❤
That's a huge blunder by Scott Hahn. He says that "the pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is." This is a blatant denial of a dogma that has been repeated by saints, doctors, Councils, popes, and theologians for millennia. The pope is the visible head of the Church just as Christ is the invisible head. There are not two heads, but Christ and his Vicar constitute one only head.
I feel like this is just a misunderstanding. What do the saints say about the pope being the head, IN OPPOSITION to Christ? I don't think they would say that. I think Scott is saying that the Church (and the Pope by extension) is subservient to Christ, ultimately.
@@regandonohue3899yeah, there’s no blunder or heresy. The pope is subservient to Christ, as are all of us. Ultimately the pope is the head servant, but he isn’t the master of the house.
Michael Lofton made a video about this. Hahn obviously didn't mean to deny this Dogma, but what he said was not true.
@@jmj.thomaswith all to respect to Michael Lofton, whose I have a great deal of respect for and generally think is right, I did watch Lofton’s video and I don’t think he is correct in this case. I’m going to trust Dr. Hahn’s decades of experience and scholarship, commentary, and theological assessment more than Lofton’s. They’re both merely human and both can err. Not putting either on a pedestal. But I think Lofton is in the wrong here.
@@Chispaluz Agreed. Dr. Hahn is in the wrong here. While I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hahn (after all, he introduced me to the intellectual side of the faith), the Pope being the head of the Church is not in opposition to Christ being the head. The way I see it, it’s similar in many ways to the question of who is the rock. Lofton has the ecumenical councils on his side too. So as between Dr. Hahn and the councils, is there really much else to think about? And I think Lofton was just being charitable by saying that Dr. Hahn must have meant something else.
these ad transitions are sloppy brother
Thursday, please stop starting the ads a minute into a video
Great
When I see and hear what actually is happening In Rome I nearly tend to become a sedevacantist. But still there is hope.
The sede vacante thesis is not at all incompatible with the Church's teachings and Christ's promises. If it is true, there is certainly reason to hope. Almighty God will resolve this.
If ever there was a time for this wisdom from above, it is now. Thank you Dr Hahn! When we peel our eyes off the screens and turn them toward the heavenly, when we come as paupers to receive Jesus’ invention to dine with him, it is there that we will see the truth, beauty and goodness of the Catholic Church and become the peacemakers.
The world in the church
Ignorance is bliss.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Of course you don’t think that.
Unfortunately I know that.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Curious here. Why didn’t you ask why I would consider such a distasteful thought?
That is, if you are truly concerned about your brothers and sisters in Christ.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Unfortunately, your comment read like you were telling me your opinion and then invited me to agree with you.
A question usually begins with a what, when, *why* , how. Nor do I consider your attempt at telling me that you asked me, a form of re-asking me; with any sort of Christian concern.
Anyway, there are indeed a lot of delightful people in this world who seek answers to certain questions regarding the idea of faith, but when they ask questions, they seem to *always* ; not sometimes, but always receive ambiguity, condescension, revised history and/or ‘sorry, I don’t understand your question,’ or no reply at all.
Explicitly, your reply to a comment that I wrote read as a *nothing* response to a comment that your host ignored, even though he parades himself as a *teacher*
As a former Roman Catholic myself; re-seeking answers about the faith thoroughly understand that attitudes have not changed since I left the church 40 odd years ago because of the very same reasons that I am writing this reply to you. Ambiguity and non Christian replies regarding the Christian faith, by Christian actors.
Don’t look at the contradictory actions by those called of God, but rather, bury yourself in the sacraments and prayer for those called of God.
As I stated in my comment. Ignorance is bliss.
Thank you.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf PS: I did indeed respond in a more positive light, until I re-read your your reply and realised your lack of sincerity.
I now appreciate that you may think you are sincere, but, unfortunately, your comments do not read as well as you would like, bearing no resemblance to your recent declaration.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf Fair enough Ed. There isn’t anything to forgive.
You seem to believe that it is normal for one not to question their religious leaders, while I believe that it is totally necessary.
One only needs to look at the state of the declining church and society in general and compare what is preached with what is practiced. Something does not quite add up; an inspection of historical civilisation will show the exactly the same parallels.
Why would one choose to be ignorant of the failings of apathetic leaders? Do we not vote out apathetic civil authorities? A bishop, cardinal or priest should all the more be equiped to shepherd the flock in accordance with their professed calling from God.
Anyway, if you cannot see that your supposed question was not taken as a question, even after being told that it was not understood as a question, well, you are correct in that there isn’t anything more to be said.
I will continue to entice the teaching class to live up to their calling and have more historical and theological discussions with those who share an interest as such occasions arise.
Good day/night; according to where ever you may dwell.
If anything, your written communication bares a great deal of resemblance to how my family responds to those whom are not in their fold.
That was massively good advice. Wish every Catholic could hear it.
As far as everyone accusing Dr. Hahn of spreading heresy:
This is a misunderstanding from imprecision in words, and frankly a refusal to interpret him charitably. It’s obvious Hahn means that the Pope does not derive his authority from his own person, and that the pope is a servant of Christ.
People, both Catholics and non-Catholics, think of the pope in material terms, as if Catholics believe the pope himself in his own person has some divinity. And that’s why we freak out when we find that a pope may be a regular, imperfect sinner just like anyone else. In some cases a pope may even be a “scoundrel.” But we need to remember that the office of the pope gets its authority ultimately from Jesus Christ, not it’s own divinity. We can tolerate human imperfection, it’s not going to destroy the church because it ultimately is ruled by Christ, regardless of the human creature that occupies the office at any time.
There is no contradiction here between the pope as the vicar and visible head of the church, and Jesus Christ as the invisible head. It’s just a clarification to remember that the visible head is subject to the invisible head. The visible head doesn’t operate on its own authority and we shouldn’t mistakenly believe that and start demanding perfect popes as the only solution to the ultimate success of the church in its mission.
No one is demanding a perfect pope. We could start with one that is actually Catholic and who doesn't bring pagan idols into churches. How about one who doesn't tell us that God wills that other religions exist and that it's wrong to convert people?
As for this video; one should not need to interpret a person in any particular way when it comes to talking about clearly defined dogmas. The onus is on the speaker to choose his words wisely and not lead people astray.
Dr. Hahn has a duty to clarify if he meant something different. So far, he has not clarified anything.
I want to clarify I don’t ask this to be provocative or argumentative. Although, can I ask why the Catholic Church changed the 10 commandments?
It’s a difference in numbering. Tim Staples has a nice article about this on Catholic Answers. The first commandment “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods besides me” includes the command not to make graven images and to not worship any gods except the Lord. The idea is the same, i.e. have no false gods before the Lord, including graven images. Protestants do a similar thing with the last two commandments. The two commands “thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and “thou shall not covet your neighbor’s goods are “consolidated”‘into one commandment “thou shall not covet.” The idea is the same (do not covet) so they combine this into one commandment. If you count the “thou shall’s and thou shall nots” listed in the Ten Commandments discourse, there are actually 13. You need to combine them into ten somehow based on intent and idea. Both the Catholic and Protestant church’s Ten Commandments encompass the full intent of the commands of God.
@@Mr.Peck88 thanks mate!
I didn't like the question, but his answer was acceptable
Here’s an idea….. Why not promote TLM instead of restricting it, how about not talking about climate change with radical leftists and talking about Christ. Maybe call out the American Bishops that are using Catholic Charities with the Feds in the USA supporting illegal immigration. Try to find the good but don’t put your head in the sand and not request accountability. Im disappointed in this because the message is not even to ignore it, Scott seems to be calling for ignorance.
I love my brothers and sisters in the Catholic church but the Government and religion go hand in hand at the Vatican. I have never liked that nor figured out why that's the case. Jesus certainly didn't intend for this.
Not to mention the pushing of the vax rather than trusting God! So many levels of wrong that need to be addressed.
@@EdFranklin-qv1bf I agree but what business does the pope have influencing borders, immigration and climate agendas (which are all against God given rights)?
I didn’t get that message from what he said. I gather he’s saying we’ve had plenty of bad popes and we will have plenty more, because the earthly part of the church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people. And it’s important for us to not get obsessed with things we can’t fix, nor forget that no amount of sin or imperfection can ultimately thwart God’s will. The Vicar of the church is not the actual head. We can handle some (or a lot) of bad management. We have done so for two thousand years. But at the end of the day that doesn’t make or break the faith, the church, or the truth. We also forget that the portion of the church on earth is such a small part of it. A drop in the ocean. It doesn’t have to be perfect to be a perfect instrument of our salvation. So the most important thing is to focus on our own faith and families, where our day to day actions actually have a tremendous impact.
I would think the most important thing is to focus on Christ and His will. The rest falls into place if you’re following Christ.
Defending the papacy is a never ending challenge. Papal infallibility, supremacy, and development of doctrine are self contradictory. Calling popes antipopes is just proof of this.
Why call the Pope the Holy Father when he is a sinner just like the rest of us? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Holy as "...perfect in goodness and righteousness; DIVINE" It seems to me the only one worthy of the title, "Holy Father" is God Himself.
Are you Catholic?
All they’ll say is Webster isn’t their authority for defining words.
Acts 3:21 "..God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets."
Merriam-Webster definition 3 : devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity
Do you think the pope is devoted to serving Christ? His comments and actions seem to contradict that.
Well, U can pray for the Pope if U like. U want the papacy to be a sort voice of the conscience on earth but religion is not an end in itself. I think God has been giving ample evidence of that. The Pope is not my Savior. Ultimately we are each responsible for the choices we make and will give an account of it before God. Rather than having to read tons & tons & tons of theological works only to end up at the same point we started.
The Church of Christ could be in the basement of a ghetto where an AA meeting is held. And it is there. The Vatican's money and decor cannot buy Christ's presence. Only an open repenting heart.
Dude tell that to all the AA meetings that discourage and harass you for even mentioning Jesus Christ. There is a reason that Christian churches exist
im sorry for the bad experience. I live in Hungary. AA is a very Christian thing here. It's like the Blue Cross@@Seliz463
I’m not sure why people would leave to become Eastern Orthodox. Theologically Lutherans are in between and would make the most sense for Catholics. Yes I believe all are a part of the body of Christ, but it’s just baffling to me that this is what Catholics always say. It’s like the fact that there is a strong ecclesial body that is resistant to reform is more important to them than the actual doctrines. I’m not just saying that because I’m a Lutheran, but because I legitimately don’t understand how someone can go from affirming dogmas which call one who believes in justification by faith alone an anathema (Canon 9 Council of Trent) to a tradition which goes beyond Luther in faith alone rejecting reason.
You are not to invent your own gospel, William, or accept the gospel someone else invented.
There is a difference between the catholic church and the Roman catholic church
the Church is built uppon Peter and all of its members must be submited to him who has the power of the keys, the vicar of Christ.
Perhaps we are discovering that this isnt the model of church Christ wanted. Perhaps an apostolic church of distributed authority rather than a singular Petrine church with centralised authority was what Jesus was calling us to? Yes, there is always the role of Peter as the figurehead, chairman, and final casting vote amongst the congregation of apostleships but in these modern times when the Pope is accountable to the people and his centralised authority can be questionned it certainly puts the church at risk of becoming a cult. Pope Francis isnt effective and certainly is divisive and look what problems that brings uppn the church. If the Popes of history had been subject to public scrutiny like today, the church would not have survived in this form. Isnt that an argument against centralised authority in this matter, that the institution can only and did only survive absent external accountability and inspection?
I was the catholic once but there's too much going on in that catholic religion that I refuse to have anything to do with them anymore
It's the Catholic media and ultra right (and left but they're obvious) causing all the chaos. Michael Lofton has a UA-cam channel called, "Reason & Theology" that is very clear about the Church and her teachings and how the media is distorting and doing so much damage. I'm a convert and love the Catholic Church.
It's been very disappointing that so many supposed theogians aren't out there teaching but just helping to feed the drama.
Yet you comment on this channel? We're praying for your return home, friend.
I hope you learn to love as God does, not running away from sinners as if imperfection is contagious. Christ emptied Himself to be close to us.
And where should a person start? The catechism or the Bible?
I know exactly how you feel.
I won't share what my position in the faith but
*Pray the 7 sorrows of Mary daily
*Pray the 15 decades rosary everyday.
You'll understand why Mother Mary's heart breaks until today.