Why Bad Popes Don't Disprove the Papacy w/ Scott Hahn and Cameron Bertuzzi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Watch the full interview here: • Conversion to Catholic...
Protestant Cameron Bertuzzi asks Jeff to take on the common objection "if Catholicism is true, why are there so many bad popes?" Dr. Hahn gives a direct, honest, and scripturally backed response going as far back as the Davidic Kingdom.
===
📚 My new book:amzn.to/3FXQDuj
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/M...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
We get a small kickback from amazon affiliate links.
In spite of the bad Popes, the Holy Church has withstood tribulation even after 2000 years, proving what Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
No better person to answer all questions regarding our Catholic Faith than Dr. Scott Hahn!
Thank God for him 🙏💒
What a treasure Scott Hahn has been to me, my convert wife, my family and our church, and to to protestants who will eventually convert to Catholicism once they hear him.
Woah. As a Protestant seeking to become a Catholic, this was powerful an deep!
we are waiting for you....
it's important to understand that the majority of early church father's did not see Peter as the rock but instead understood it to mean the gospel of Jesus. The Bible does not clearly or even unclearly lay our the office of the Pope. It is a later invention. There is salvation outside of the Catholic church and I believe it would only hurt your growth to become catholic.
@@dogbackwardspodcast that's what I don't like with protestants. They think their interpretation and shallow views of the bible is the right one. If you want to prove your claim, you need to be in a discussion or debate, so that you can defend that claim and prove it. In that sense, please reach out to Scot Hahn or other strong catholic apologist and try to prove that your claim is correct.
Who said our view was shallow? That seems like a lazy way to dismiss what I said. Protestants have a rich history of diving deep into God's word and are historically even willing to die when threatened by the Catholic church because we are convinced by scripture that the office of the Pope is a false office. You can actually check the videos I posted recently where I look at the arguments from Catholic apologists and interact with them. I might think Catholicism is wrong but I wouldn't call you shallow.@@Hesoyam31
@@glennlanham6309 That sounds creepy and cultish.
Thanks for your beautiful contributions Dr. Scott Hahn. Any protestant interested in finding fulfilment in his or her spiritual journey into Catholicism should read the fathers of the Church.
The Pope never proposes that he does not sin, he goes to confession weekly...A total of 83 (out of 266) Popes have been recognized universally as canonized saints, including all of the first 35 Popes (31 of whom were martyrs) .....there is no human organization as holy as the Papacy....even then there where 8 bad popes, but these bad Popes never changed doctrines on faith and morals to suit themselves....
... and the gates of Hell shall not withstand it (Matt 16:18).
Yes, exactly. But there is a crucial distinction to be made between heresy and schism and all other serious sins. Pertinacious heresy (and also schism) always exiles the heretic from membership in the Church, cutting him/her off from the True Vine, the Mystical Body of Christ, while all other serious sins can be forgiven in the tribunal of penance. Heresy means that you are not a Catholic, and there is no forgiveness of sins, just as there is no salvation, outside the Catholic Church . A non Catholic obviously cannot hold an office in the Church of Christ. This is just simple logic and common sense...
There have been 40 + antipopes in the history of the Church, but only one that was deposed for heresy, and then, as I understand it, only for heretical leanings. But we now have a whole series of men sitting in the papal chair who are manifest, public and pertinacious (unrepentant) heretics, and who for 50+ years have permitted every sort of liturgical and moral scandal in flagrant violation of Canon Law and the Bull Quo Primum. Who can deny this who knows exactly the infallibly defined doctrines of the Church, especially her salvation doctrine, and who has read this Bull of St. PIus V. If we say that they are true popes, then we are saying that a true Vicar of Christ can hold and/or teach doctrinal error as a private person. But Church teaching will not allow this. For as a private person, he is subject first to the Divine Law (and secondarily to Canon Law) which automatically excommunicates pertinacious heretics, because heresy is a sin directly against the veracity of God.. The Papacy as an INSTITUTION is exempt from error, specially protected by Christ, so that error will not be taught or even implied by His Vicar in His Name. And therefore if a person who has been elected to the papacy begins to hold and publicly teach error - even as a private person - of which he does not repent, he cannot legitimately occupy the papacy. A pope must be an orthodox Catholic, "in season or out of season", or he is not a pope.
The papcy advocated slavery and indulgence in wealth it has been baught many times and if ot is infallabe how come it is so corrupt till this day
Absolutely so well articulated!
I’m a very recent catechumen so please excuse me if this is a heresy, but I view the Pope as I do the Bible. The Lord works through man to ensure his message is put forth, but the man is still present. The bad in any of the past popes is no more a surprise as rules on proper slave management was in the Bible. Humanity will always have sin.
As someone who is not Catholic, but is sincerely investigating the tradition, I’m not encouraged by videos or comments that trash the pope. Im not saying this is one of those videos. Speaking generally. I’m thankful for honest criticism of the Pope as it has helped develop my understanding that you can be Catholic and disagree with the Pope sometimes as well. But as an evangelical, I would encourage anyone who is Catholic to make all criticisms in love with charitable speech because I know all too well a world where people care nothing of holy and God given authority. The crumbling view of authority and the lifting up of individual thought as authority, in my opinion, has been detrimental to the evangelical community. The authority of the church is honestly one of the biggest draws for many. Be careful to not dismantle or shake its foundation too much or people might miss out on that beauty.
Hear hear 🙏 ❤️ God bless you from Liverpool England 🏴
If it’s true it can’t be dismantled. And that’s the issue here.
Dr Scott Hahn has so much more to say about this, he has taught me so much, but he had to give only a pint size explanation😊
@@traceybellucci1845 I also have people
Who teach me many things. But. When it comes to doctrine. I allow the text to speak. John 17:17 and John 1:1-3. If we can’t hold
The Bible as being true and accurate. What rock do we have to stand on for anything.
@@Raycurlee23 yes, I hear what you are saying. We also need to remember that we lose a lot of the Bible's meaning when it's translated from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and then into English. It's good to have a good theologian like Dr Scott Hahn who knows Greek and has studied what the Church Fathers have said about the Scriptures
Dr Hahn is absolutely amazing, he (along with Dr Pitre) is a special gift to the Church. I also think of Jesus Last Supper discourse where he prays for His Apostles and followers and asks The Father not to 'take them from the World' but to give them The Holy Spirit.
Scott Hahn is not "amazing". He is a little aging Catholic man, just like the rest of us who love the Truth and struggle to follow Christ's way of the holy Cross to salvation. Only God/Christ is great and "amazing". "Why call ye Me good? God only is good." - Our Lord
@@tonysaid6184 Scott Hahn is amazing. You twist Scripture and don't understand much of it. Scott speaks God's truth, you don't. And the version of the bible you use and quoted from...well it's an unauthorized altered version.
Also previously in that discourse, Jesus also mentioned that He does NOT pray for world, only His disciples (followers). That is why intercessory prayers are a necessity!!
I agree! St Peter is awesome & I love his spontaneous personality & strong faith to the point of dying by crucifixion upside down ✝️ God Bless 🕊
He's absolutely brilliant, God intelligent truth train of Knowledge for God Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
I'm currently looking into the Catholic church, I'm a lifelong Protestant in my 50's. To me this subject of the thread of Jesus and the Davidic kingdom is key. I'm interested to hear more of this, Scott Hahn is a really good speaker.
You might want to listen to Fr Mike Schmitz podcasts Bible and Catechism in a year, Keith Nester (former Baptist minister) as well. If you have questions, you can visit CatholicAnswers online and/or The Catechism of The Catholic Church online. God bless!
I recommend a UA-cam channel called " I miss Christendom". Excellent catholic channel to learn from
Read the book, Rome, Sweet Home, by Scott Hahn. 😊
@@bryanwolfe9350 God bless you. I hope it's been productive and you grow closer to the catholic church.
That’s why it’s really important as Catholics to really understand and know our faith,,, any pope or church leader that is contradicting the faith we should not follow we should pray for them for the repentance and conversion but that’s why it’s really important to really understand what Christ our Lord his Catholic Church teaches,,, Always be courageous and speak the truth
Praying is so insanely arrogant.. you seriously think god makes mistakes where you know better and can offer good advice to god? Really really dumb bro.. like insanely stupid
Very good and exact Jose. If you read my two posts on this topic at the top of this comment page, you will see that we are in perfect agreement. Bergoglio is simply a heretic, and moreover by refusing to answer the "dubia" proposed to him by the group of cardinals, he solidifies his position as an enemy of the truth. I am..... the Truth..." "I am the true Vine." "What fellowship has truth with error or Christ with Beelzebub?"
Dr Scott Hahn knowledge of the Bible and Catholicism is beyond my comprehension. I can’t get enough listening to him. Thank you
We have a saying in Spanish “ no ay mal, que por bien no venga”. Basically, some bad has to happen for good to out of it.
Popes making bad moral choices is one thing, however, Popes literally claiming to speak for God and then contradicting both scripture and other Popes is a whole other thing.
@malcmitchell9738 He's not hypothesizing. This very video names popes that were very heretical and scandalous. This cannot be true with papal infallibility.
exactly
Yeah, kind of a nail in the coffin. If you ask me
I can see Cam’s eyes like, “Oh no, this was the last objection I had, now I’ve got to be Catholic….” And now he is!
Just because the Sailors at the time may be bad doesn't discount the strength or reliability of the boat
Been a life long catholic. So times I wonder if I'm catholic because I was raised in it or if it really is the way. I can honestly say seeking the path something above me has always pointed the light forward on my current path. As t times the journey has looked outward and always brought me back to this path. I love this channel for helping to explain my faith more in depth. Thank you for that.
I've asked myself the same questions as much as distancing myself from church to sort of look from the outside in and realizing that i was in fact in the right church but never really living my faith as i should. I have now come to a deeper understanding and sometimes tear up to what i know now as truth.
It's almost like Scott Hahn is saying that God sends us bad popes as a scourge to reawaken His Church !
We are tested in many unpredictable ways.
God allows bad priests as punishment, yes.
We get what we deserve because we allowed evil to take over by tolerating it but still we have to be loyal to Mother Church and never leave her and we have to respect the Office of Peter even though sometimes is confusing
That’s called mental gymnastics
@MsStack42
Good point. Such failures describes humanity; starting with Adam and Eve and eventually Judas, an Apostol who knew Jesus and betrayed Him nevertheless. Such types will always be present, along with failures and repentance, like Peter's, in our Christian history.
God bless.
Please do not compare Peter to the Bad Popes! Please do not do that. When Peter denied Jesus, under, humanly speaking, desperate circumstances, as Jesus was being condemned, he repented immediately in tears and with a broken heart.
"The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, 'Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.'
And he went out and wept bitterly."
Luke 22:62
The Bad Popes on the other hand led, quite simply, sinful, fleshly lives and were spectacularly perverse men who certainly did not love Jesus and never repented. Peter most certainly did.
To compare Peter with these men is to deceive unlearned Roman Catholics, i.e., the great majority. It's not fair and it's not right.
'The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."
Proverbs 18:17
You can't claim that the bad popes didn't repent with any actual authority. A quick Google search will show you that Benedict IX (the one Dr. Hahn points to as quite possibly the worst) perhaps repented: Saint Bartholomew of Grottaferrata says he repented of his sins. Many (hopefully all!) of these pernicious pontiffs might have had a "Peter moment" and turned back to Christ, and so could very well be enjoying the Beatific Vision. Do not be so quick to make statements about the fate of the deceased, especially those you never knew. That kind of judgement is for God alone.
Thank you Mr. Hahn!
You put this into perspective wonderfully!
A true gift of the catholic church.
He's right, bad popes do not disprove the papacy. But they certainly pick at the foundation of papal infallibility.
Good thing I’m Catholic because God makes His Church Holy. I’m here because this is the Church He founded and no matter who is the Pope, I will follow Jesus. ♥️🙏🏼♥️
Though being Catholic myself, I did have some problems with papal infallibility. However, when I researched it, I understood that while rare, God will prevent the Pope from teaching heresy or from making errors in terms of faith and morals. Peter’s two letters in the New Testament are an example of papal infallibility because the Bible is inerrant. Therefore, God kept Peter from error when he wrote those letters.
@@Powerranger-le4up was Peter incapable of error when Paul rebuked him (Galatians 2:11-21)?
Only in subjective perception, not in objective truth.
@@Powerranger-le4up"papal infallibility" is circumscribed only to few moments, when a Pope speaks "ex cathedra" and when he speaks in the name of a Council or when he proclaims a dogma or when he explicity mention the Petrine magisterium, those are very few and restricted moments. People think that every time a Pope open his mouth is infallible, no it's not that easy.
Thanks much for this video.
Praise be to God!!! This is soooo excellent!!! Wow i love it…our God is so beautiful, so merciful!!! Thank you so much for this! God bless you!
🙏🏻🕊❤️🔥🕊🙏🏻
Few people realize that when Jesus told Peter, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…” He also had in mind that Peter would also rule a country, amass an army, and enter into wars.
No he didn’t. Right after that event we come to the point where Jesus is explaining to his disciples that he will have to suffer and die. And Peter is the one who gets rebuked for suggesting that it cannot be so.
Awesome three-way discussion.
Dr. Hahn is correct, since Jesus Christ, nothing has sustained like the Papacy. Omg 😮, that is a long time ago. 2,020 years.
Great video.
The true saying is that the Church is a collection of saints & sinners. We, as the people of God, are in the process of becoming saints because of the power of Jesus.
Yay Scott Hahn!
As much as I don’t like pope Francis, don’t put his picture in the thumbnail and then talk about the horrendous popes in history. He’s not that bad, yet. 😂😂😂
I was raised Catholic, not one now (topic for another day). If you believe (as all Catholic should) the Holy Spirit anoints the Pope, then you have to believe God has a Plan...And I Trust Him.
The same god that rage quit 20 million human lives out of spite.. the same god that commanded multiple genocides and explicitly demanded his worshippers to take child virgins as brides to he awarded to loyal soldiers? You sick freak..
Yes, God has a plan, but we have the free will to disregard the desires and dreams He sets in our hearts.
"Do what God calls you to do, and you will set the world on fire"
St Catherine of Sienna
@@rebn8346yes, but he only permits evil so to bring His Glory out even greater. Even when people disregard the Holy Spirit, God will still bring so much good from it.
@@littledrummergirl_19 yes, God can always bring good out of evil
The Holy Spirit does not appoint the pope.
But yes, God has a plan.
Another thing to think about, did the wicked kings that stemmed from the line of David disprove that it was from God? No In fact Our Lord came from this same line
When Mr. Han said, "It [Davidic Kingdom] has been my bailiwick".I had to lookup Bailiwick. Perhaps it's just me, or it's an american thing. We live and learn.
I checked its etymology, it is indeed an American thing...
"In English, the original French bailie combined with -wic, the Anglo-Saxon suffix (meaning a village) to produce a term meaning literally 'bailiff's village'-the original geographic scope of a bailiwick. In the 19th century, it was absorbed into American English as a metaphor for a sphere of knowledge or activity."
So … Peter is declared “the rock”, has the “keys of the kingdom”, and WHATEVER he bind and loosens on Earth is bound and loosened heaven” …
… except when he’s not, “cuz reasons”.
good job Dr Scott Hahn
Good video
Saint Peter is the defense for bad Popes, also we should remember; the earth, God has given to the sons of men, even dominion, even the Papacy & the Church & we can obviously sin, be entangled by it, even shrink back to destruction, but the holy apostolic Catholic Church is & will be triumphant for the glory, praise & honor of our great God & Savior Jesus Christ, the King of Kings that upholds all things by the word of His power
Scott Hahn is great at explaining the faith!
Excellent !
Bad Valid Popes also don't disprove the reality of Antipopes (there have been over 30 in the Church, and you refuse to consider the very serious evidence that Bergoglio is indeed an antipope)
Typology is sticky, and what I mean more precisely is this: where are the bounds of this typology?
For example, should we take the entirety of the church to be Israel of the OT like Paul teaches in Romans? If we were to do that then it seems fitting that this typology could begin in the wilderness and end of course with the coming messiah. If taken this way then I think a Protestant could make a fairly strong argument that the papacy represents a system that was never meant to be instituted but by popular demand (and rejection of God Himself) was granted to the people of Israel. This institution of course spilt and ebbed and flowed until the True King came and set up His Kingdom on the earth.
I don’t say this to be anti-Catholic, but as a man who’s trying to sort these things as well I must agree that we have to be careful with typology, especially typology that isn’t clearly defined by Jesus or the apostles.
Could someone clear up whether or not this typology is clearly taught in scripture? Or is this an idea we find in the Fathers?
This is a topic with which I am struggling to discern also.
Typology is evidently employed by Jesus and NT writers no doubt, but it seems to me that this mode of interpretation placed sparks in people’s minds that have spread into speculative theological wildfires.
In scripture typology is utilized to highlight fulfillment of prophecy or a specific similarity between two events/people to provide a point. I think we’re on dangerous grounds when we try to connect other dots that were not the intention of the comparison in the first place. The intention of comparison is often explicitly stated or can be found through implication by context.
However my question of concern now is as to whether we are supposed to see and build upon everything in the NT through the interpretation and retrieval of so much of the OT.
Dr. Hahn has a popular saying: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme”. He means it in a positive sense which he uses to often build the beautiful structure of his typological arguments. I used to get swept away in that beauty, but the more and deeper I look into history, I now take that same statement as a dire warning.
OT theology and patterns are huge in understanding Catholicism. Much, if not all of the explanations used by Catholicism to validate why they do what they do and teach what they teach (There are popular Catholic books on “The Jewish Roots of the…Papacy, Mary, Eucharist, etc.) is heavily influenced by typology.
Church? Typology.
Mary? Typology.
Liturgy, vestments, candles, incense, daily sacrifice, priests, Popes, reparation of sins (penance)… Typology.
You can’t begin to comprehend the religion of Catholicism without understanding Judaism, not only in appearance and structure, but also in theology (especially as opposed to Protestant theology).
I mean to cause no offense in saying this, but am truly trying to discern as to whether this is what Jesus came to free us to and implement. It seems (to me atm) to often cut against the grain of Jesus's teachings and examples.
If you’re interested in Catholicism don’t rely solely on the pop apologetics. Start reading stuff like Vatican I to begin to understand the language and perspectives of Papal claims, which everything within Catholicism falls under the umbrella of. Reading only post Vatican II and Catholic Answers stuff just caused me nauseating shock when I discovered pre Vatican II claims, teachings, and history later.
Most importantly, DO NOT STOP READING THE BIBLE! May the Holy Spirit be with you.
@alemar3271 Absolutely loved how you typed out my own thinking, I didn't know we knew one another 😅
I learned the early popes…would like to see more. Thank you.
People who have great knowledge are only greatly helpful if they have great honesty...I find many intellectual people only interested in other intellectuals to invite into their little clubs where they smoke cigars,drink ale, and feel quite good about one's self, please look deeper.
A sober contribution by a famous historian is the chapter How the Borgia Popes Provoked the Protestant Secession, in Barbara Tuchman's 'The March of Folly'.
The Borgia popes may have had a role in provocation, but it must be remembered that the father of Protestantism is the father of lies, himself, satan.
is the choosing of the see by God or by man? why are 5 popes throughout history from the orsini family? were these elects politically motivated? or was it divinely chosen by God?
What about the fact that God never wanted Israel to have a human king in the first place? God was to be their only King, with a system of prophet Judges and Priests. God warned them that they would be miserable, but they were adamant...so He let them have what they demanded. See Samuel 8:1-22.
Indeed - and that’s why when God established His Divine Davidic Kingdom, He became the King Himself, fully human and divine. Vivat Christus Rex!
Ok so this is apostolic succession??? He says "Benedict the 9th BOUGHT his way into his position" ?!?!? So a man used the root of all evil which is money to gain a powerful position and this is the Holy unbroken chain of the apostles.. YEAH RIGHT!
Apostolic succession can be simply bought?!
Wow definitely not a teaching of Christ. That's absurd to think that's what Jesus preached but rather was made a doctrine by this early church. I don't care how tightly they try to push this into the cracks of scripture, it is simple NOT biblical.
The catholic papacy Is all over the bible, Daniel, theselonions, AND ofcourse revelations.
Pretty much does.....
How does this coincide with papal infallibility.
i thought the election of the pope by the body of cardinals was Holy Spirit inspired. that does not seem to be true though?
Because religious people can never admit any real fault in their religion. No matter how clear it is, no matter how obvious, they can never just say "Ok, its wrong here." Blatant dishonest bias, and an endless stream of rhetorical fluff to defend it.
David wrote by inspiration some words from Jesus and Peter quote them in Acts 2, So, who is in front of Jesus, who will not leave Jesus in the grave, Jesus is with great Joy in the presence of who?
Acts 2: 21 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’ (...)
25 For David says about Jesus: ‘I keep Jehovah constantly IN FRONT OF ME, for HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND that I may never be shaken. 26 On this account my heart became cheerful and my tongue rejoiced greatly. And I will reside in hope; 27 because YOU WILL NOT LEAVE ME in the Grave, nor will you allow YOUR LOYAL ONE to see corruption. 28 You have made life’s ways known to me; YOU WILL FILL ME with great joy IN YOUR PRESENCE.’
34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says (in Psalm 110:1), ‘Jehovah said to my Lord [Jesus]: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet
39 For the promise is to you and your children, and to all those who are far away, to all those whom Jehovah our God may CALL TO HIMSELF.
Joel 2:32
And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said, The survivors WHOM JEHOVAH CALLS.”
Mark 13:20 Jesus said:
In fact, unless Jehovah had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of THE CHOSEN ONES WHOM HE HAS CHOSEN, HE HAS CUT short the days.
There is no Jehovah. It is a manmade error, derived mistakenly from YHWH, from Germans. Pronounced Yahweh! ( vowels "a" and "e" were written above God's name of YHWH, the "a" for Adonai, and the "e" for Elohim) used in place of YHWH as a name of the God of the Hebrews during prayer recitation, since YHWH was not to be spoken, instead of accidentally pronouncing the sacred name.
Adonai means Lord or Master. Elohim means God.
@@c.Ichthys people saying Jehovah dont exist basically believe in the roman trinity and dont even know who he is but just debate about the translation of his name not knowing who he is.
@@c.Ichthys who resurrected Jesus? Who is the God of Abraham if Jesus was resurrected by him?
Acts 5:30
The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus,
Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Son and Servant, Jesus
Exodus 6:3
King James Bible
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
@@c.Ichthys So, who is in front of Jesus, who will not leave Jesus in the grave, Jesus is with great Joy in the presence of who in Acts 2?
@@luismejia5224
The Trinity is not "Roman". The Trinity is an immutable reality. One Body in three persons. Not separate; not 3 individual "gods".
God the Father
God the Son (The Word)
God the Holy Spirit
Just as Jesus declared, "He who sees me sees the Father "
Jesus is The Word. Read Gospel of John
1 "In the *beginning* *was* the *Word* ,
and the *Word* *was* *with* *God* ,
and the *Word* *was* *God* .
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 *All* *things* came to be *through* *him* ,
and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be
4 through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
........
14 And the *Word* *became* *flesh*
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth."
-----------
Jesus is The Word, made flesh in the incarnation. He is our Emmanuel (means "God with us).
Since Jesus is God, and God is Father, they who see Jesus, see also the Father. They are one.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
One body in three persons
Not separate. Amen!
That makes alot of sense with this heretic we have rn. CHRIST is King.✝️🙏
Ephesians 3:9
King James Version
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
A god that hides is the exact same as a god that doesnt exist..
Try quoting Catholic translation aka Douay Rheims
is there a video with the whole interview?
According to the Written Scriptures, all members (body/bride) of the Church of God in Christ Jesus are called (living) SAINTS in the Eyes of the Apostles... (ref. 1 Corin. 16:1-4)...
Did Christ Jesus teach and give the Apostles the standard parameters/guidelines/measurements on how to Canonize (declare/beatify) Dead Saints?... NOPE, Christ never taught canonization/beatification of dead Saints.... NONE, Christ never gave any standard parameters for canonization/beatification...
Therefore, this Canonization/Beatification PROCESS was a complete Man-Made (Pope) Doctrine/Dogma of the R.C.C... Non-Biblical TRUTH.
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
What is the biblical history of leadership positions in God’s kingdom? Not just David and Solomon who you maybe could compare with Peter, but God allowed Manasseh to lead the Israelites in egregious error. That doesn’t mean that the Israelites were never truly God’s chosen people because they were lead in evil and followed it.
Try Eliakim in Isaiah 22 and look at Matthew 16 when Jesus says that Peter is the Rock.
Question: if Peter was the top-down leader of the early church, why wasn't he treated that way in Acts or the Epistles? You don't see everyone defaulting to him on everything, and in fact Peter is rebuked by Paul over his unwillingness to eat with Gentile.Christians. If Peter was essentially the Pope, wouldn't Acts and the Epistles say something about it? Wouldn't Paul say something in at least one of his letters about how they need to follow Peter's decree on this or that? What you see, at least as far as I can tell, is numerous self-governing church bodies that do have elders whom the flock are expected to obey, but no mention of a central authority.
Comments like this will
Get you thrown off a catholic comment board. But you are right. Why would Jesus build his church on a man? He built
His church off what Peter said.
Does s bad CEO mean the end of a corporation
The Jesus Christ said to St. Peter: "You are the rock and on this rock I will make the church..." So, pope Francis or another pope, can make mistakes but the rock can not make mistakes!
Bad popes don’t disprove the papacy in the same way that Judas Iscariot doesn’t disprove Christ’s Apostles
It does when Catholics claim "Vicar of Christ" and "Papal Primacy/Supremacy" despite zero biblical support. Their structure is based on massive extrapolation from a handful of verses taken out of context. We wouldn’t have these discussions if it weren’t for lack of definitive scripture. All of their claims are based on writings 100+ years after the events, but nothing biblical
Nobody claimed Judas was infallible LOLL
The only thing bad about this video is the image of pope Francis... you should show more respect...
Matthew 16:18 states "You are peter (Greek, Petros = small piece of rock)... and on this Rock (Greek, Petra = Large mass of Rock)". These are two different words. The church is founded upon the Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ. It is founded on the Petra, not the petros.
Thank you for these videos. It is good to hear a good explaination on this subject. I still am not in agreement. I am surprised the objections I have with the popacy are so mainsteam. I still hold the bible is very clear on the qualification of a priest and bishop and then to a pope. If the priest is not qualified to be a priest he is in no way a qualified pope.
The line remains broken. You used king David as an example, but a poor one. Davids heart was after the Lord. Yes he sinned, so has every human, but it was not a life of total corruption as some of the popes. He repented. Jesus is my pope and that line will never be broken. Also "Sixty-eight out of eighty-five of these pre-Roman Catholic (fathers) believed that Peter was not the Rock" That was from a 2017 report I read that I have not been able to find again. They believed as I do that it is the confession of Peter that Jesus built his church upon. "You are the Christ" The church is built on that solid corner stone.
I want to try to be charitable here, but the Pope isn’t just supposed to be some bishop or another, he’s called the Vicar of Christ. That’s the boldest title any human can possibly lay claim to. He has (nuanced) infallibility. He’s the head of the universal church. This defense is entirely unsatisfactory to a skeptic of Catholicism.
Even Peter rejected Jesus. Popes are supposed to represent Jesus, but they aren't Jesus...they still sin. Pope John Paul went to confession weekly. There were many terrible kings in the old testament, God works with bad to bring good. There are very few bad popes.
infallibility is misunderstood. It doesn't mean anything a Pope does or says is infallible.
The Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the pope cannot err *when* *speaking* *ex* *cathedra* in defining a doctrine of Christian *faith* or *morals* .
Definition of *ex* *cathedra* : with the full authority of office (especially that of the Pope, implying infallibility as defined in Roman Catholic doctrine).
The last time papal infallibility was used, was 1950.
In the 103 years since Vatican I, this authority has been used only once, in 1950, when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined The new dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily assumption to Heaven.
If a Pope behaves badly or in undisciplined manner, we do not accept such contrary behavior.
Just as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter's (1st Pope) behavior, so too can any "bad" or misguided Pope be rebuked.
And in The Church's history there have been some immoral Popes, but the Holy Spirit prevented any of them from speaking/teaching ex cathedra!
DO you even have an iota of understanding of what Papal Infallibility means?
@@kazarlengo Very few bad popes sounds pretty subjective. No king of Israel was ever held to be the unique, singular, foremost and authoritative representative of God on earth. In fact, God says that Israel electing an earthly king was a rejection of His own kingship. The kingship was flawed in essence, and God brought about good from evil. In order for your argument to apply to the papacy in similar fashion, the papacy would have to be flawed in nature as well-an essentially carnal deviation from God’s will that he used to His ends. But the Catholic claim is the papacy is innately good, ordained by God and desired by God.
@@akak8299 Well, I’d guess you have at least 3 more iotas of understanding about the subject than I do.
Not even possible to have Papal Infallibility! Only The Almighty is!!!!
Yes, there were evil high priests and kings in the Old Testament, but they weren't called the Vicar of Christ and their teachings were not held up as equal with Scripture. Nice job of sticking up for demonic, greedy, perverted popes. Don't even compare them with the Apostle Peter ((no where called Pope or Holy Father). Ephesians 2:20 says the church was built on the Apostles (plural) , Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. The authority to bind and lose was given to all the apostles. Judas was an apostles, but was lost and went to Hell. Are there Popes that went to Hell? During the Jerusalem Council did Peter give the final word or did James? Just add the Papacy to Rome's long list of heresy!
That answer made no sense. Peter repented and was an amazing example of God’s Grace. The bad popes were anti-christs. Literally against our Lord.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
Christ is the head of the church. Not the popes who claim to be vicars of Christ. The popes teach a false gospel. The Lord's apostles are the one's who walked with Him. No other apostles after them.
The early History of the supposed beginnings of Christs Church were Horrific and eventually became ever worse over time. I shall speak only of what exists today which is what pushed me out of the Catholic Church. I left the Catholic Church many years ago and for multiple serious reasons, several of which follow; Purgatory, Praying to and for the dead, Priests that have the Power and Authority to forgive sin in the confessional, The elevating of Mary above Christ, teaching that, Works are critical to your Salvation, Scripture is subject to the dictates of Tradition, not one of which has any basis in Scripture.The worst; Paying of indulgences so the Priest can buy your way into Heaven, assuming you have enough money. That Doctrine practice ended in the 18th Century. Why? It remains part of Doctrine to this day yet it is no longer practiced. Why Not?
There are many other doctrines that on their face are also Heretical and are not found in Scripture or Scripture denies them. If you don't believe that, all you have to do is read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Official Doctrines and Teachings of the Catholic Holy C. The arrogance I found, taught me so well about the Holy C, I left the Catholic Church particularly since, I would be excommunicated from the Church for simply not believing one of these Heretical teachings listed, that are not found anywhere in Scripture, the Inspired Word of GOD! Today, I'm evangelical - Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone! Sola Scriptura, the Sole Infallible Source of Authority for Christian Faith, Practice and Truth.
Even Jesus and his dad both picked some lemons..seems to be a trend.Leave staff selection to professional HR people..
Bad churches dont disprove christianity either.
Well you first have to prove that the Pope is okay in the first place and I contend he is not, no Peter was NO WHERE near Rome, it was SImon Magus who was the first Bishop of Rome
Wow
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. *These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone*
So there was serious sin and major problems in the Church before Vatican II and Novus Ordo? Say it isn't so! 😃
Hebrews 12:22-24 No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of just men made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than the blood of Abel.
Gavin is needed in discussion
I can’t believe what I’m hearing. Just study Church history and the Church Fathers, then welcome to the Orthodox Church. I’m not trying to be a jerk but I came from a Baptist background and it was so easy to pass Rome and head East. Again, not trying to be a jerk.
The only problem with the papacy is the assertion of authority. Christianity was a religion of councils the bishop of Rome considered the fist among equals. until the bishop hungry for power turned his position into something it never was.
What about the Argentinian elephant in the room?
What a stupid argument? Just because it took over a century for the church to repent, we should wait another 100 years? If this is the argument, then the church leadership should not be disciplining any lay people at all. It will just "correct" itself eventually.
If the Papacy is right and to be regarded as supreme, then why is there an ecumenical councils? why not ask the Infallible Pope instead what is Infallible teaching?
Because Papal Infallibility is a specific doctrine that applies in specific circumstances. It does not imply that the Pope should just control everything, that’s a pretty common misunderstanding
What is a "bad" pope??? "Bad" is not a theological term. It is a kindergarten term.
Things have become so bad with Bergolio that I now ignore him completely because its so discouraging
yes. Nonetheless we must pray for him.
🙄
Sigh ... more ad-hoc rationalizations skirting the issue. The Pope is either the Pope of Catholic doctrine/dogma, or he isn't. If he isn't, then the whole house-of-cards falls apart.
uh actually he upholds the Church's doctrines. A doctrine cannot be changed. Now his actions and opinions are separate from Doctrines.
Recall that Jesus chose Judas as one of His 12 Apostles, knowing the evil he would have in his heart and betrayal of Jesus. By choosing Judas, Jesus showed us by example that there would be betrayers in His Church. Jesus warned us there would be wolves in sheep's clothing.
So, Jesus who is God, demonstrated this fact. Nonetheless, despite one evil doer, there were 11 good, holy Apostles who spread the faith and died martyrs death. John died naturally around 100 years old, but did suffer and was imprisoned as well.
Not one bad Pope has ever changed Doctrine because just as Christ promised, the gates of hades will never prevail against His believed Church. Amen!
@@c.Ichthys I am pretty sure that establishing new dogma amounts to changing doctrine and dogma.
@@ZTAudio
New dogma doesnt replace the existing. It is a truth that has existed, like the reality of the Trinity, but definitively explained as an immutable truth. A person can deny those truths, (like atheists or certain psuedo-christians) but it remains truth regardless.
@@c.Ichthys Well articulated, Claire.
@@c.IchthysSoooo … when Pope Galasius emphatically declared that “the assumption of Mary” was a straight up heresy, that wasn’t totally changed in 1950?
I know… ad hoc excuse incoming, lol.
I don’t get it. The pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ on earth and yet he can be a wicked man and you tell me this does not disprove the papacy? It absolutely does disprove it because it shows Christ is not of it.
It shows that Christ is not in that man. We're talking about the office Justas. Not individuals within it.
Your criteria is as stupid as saying that because there were racists as US Presidents, The whole of the United States government is racist and therefore should be opposed.
But somehow I feel you're going to show them more charity than you will us.
And that makes sense because you have demonstrated time after time that you are against the Catholic Church not because it is a false church, but because you are a tribalist. And when you value your tribe over the truth, the truth doesn't matter to you. You demonstrate that quite well.
@@thepalegalilean so the Holy Spirit is not leading your church when it picks a pope? The Spirit makes makes mistakes because He didn’t know how wicked the man was?
@@thepalegalilean why can’t bad Popes be fired?
@@Wgaither1
Because of the office itself. The papacy is an office given to the Church by God Himself. Therefore the one who has direct command over it is God.
@@Justas399
Literally nobody argued that Justas, but thanks for your attempt at a strawman.
That was very honest of you.
Hope Dr. Hahn doesn't mislead people by giving the wrong impression of "the greater the sin the greater the grace" and thus leads people to believe the road to heaven is paved in debauchery, like the Prodigal Son...
depending on how one takes that pharse. He indeed says a fact. Sin is like a debt. one may have a 100 dollar debt and another a million dollar debt. If both debts are forgiven, the one with 1 million receives greater grace.
But of course the prerequisite for forgiveness is genuine repentance. If a million dollar debt isnt forgiven, imagine the punishment that awaits for him
@@akak8299 But telling people they can rack up a Sears catalog of crimes and all they gotta do is repent and they will get the fat calf while the ones who sacrificed to do the right thing get "invited" to celebrate them, is pretty dangerous.
I know many Lutherans who feel deeply offended by the implied message in this parable, for it pisses on their protestant work ethic.
Reality being: the more you sin the more difficult will be to repent.
The younger son only crawled back to his father due to hunger, not guilt nor shame, and the elder son knew that.
It would be wise to stress not the forgiveness of the father, but his pleading to his elder son recognizing he has a point and thus does not lecture nor reprimand him but appeals to him instead, confirming his good behavior has earned him all the father has.
@@akak8299 sin doesnt exist. Snap out of it dude
What does this verse say?
Romans Chapter 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Does this mention anything about apostolic succession, or that you need the Catholic or Orthodox Church, to be saved.
Salvation is found wherever those are calling upon The name of The Lord Jesus.
All Churches are "A" church. There is No one true church on earth. As it is written.. the "universal" Church is in Heaven and is called "The Church Of The First Born"
In which We are all those who believe in Jesus are apart of.
Disappointing answer. What do we make of the bad popes - some of whom were REALLY bad? Answer? Good came out of it, or it wasn't that bad? He hasn't even addressed the issue. The question was from an apologetic stand point. It's a genuine concern and criticism. And no answer... A reference to the Old Testament? Popes aren't Israelite kings. The New Testament gives the standards for Church leadership/bishops. These bad popes didn't even come close. The pertinent point is that these popes should have been removed from office. Their behaviour disqualifies them. They bring disgrace upon the name of God.
Surely these are the key questions. All this historical talking around the point comes across as excusing the issue.
Yeah I see that too. How much damage must be done?? All the sacraments have been changed- at leas for the (novus ordo) Roman rite. Thank God for the other rites holding strong .
Peter was even called Satan by Jesus
Peter denied Jesus 3 times
Paul even quarreled with Peter for backing down on the agreement at the Council of Jerusalem. Did Jesus disqualify Peter from his role as leader of the Church upon which was built on him? No.
Peter the first Pope was far from perfect, can even be considered a bad one considering his history of shortcomings. Yet Peter never ever once proclaimed a wrong teaching or doctrine.
Pope's are human beings susceptible to make mistakes, susceptible to sins.
Of almost 300 Popes, we can only list 1 or 2 bad Popes. No matter how bad they were, they never ever proclaimed heresy or scandalous teachings.
These ppl dont care about reality and truth, theyre just working backwards from their conclusion n have to make sense of positive evidence that their god doesnt exist or is evil itself.
In short:
The bad Popes, they murdered, had mistresses, tortured, etc. but, never attempted to change any doctrines on the faith and morals of the church.
@@jotunman627 the church is utterly without morals. Are you drunk dude?
YOU PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND PERFFECT PERSON OF ALL HUMAN CREATION EXCEPT MERY AND JESUS ?
Bad popes have always existed. The bible disproves the papacy. Nobody, Jesus included, never called Peter a pope. The apostles never addressed Peter as the pope. Peter calls himself a servant, an elder, an apostle and just a man. Bad popes exist now. First of all, Jesus never made Peter the pope. Furthermore, the bible does not support the papacy or for that matter, Catholicism. Peter was never the pope or the rock. Scripture (the O.T.) talks about a rock. That rock is not Peter. So those scriptures, 1 Samuel and Isaiah both say there is only one God and that there is NO Rock like "our God". Those scriptures totally destroy this fairytale in Matthew of Peter being the rock. The new testament in Corinthians also disproves this notion that Peter is the foundation of the church. That scripture says no other foundation can be laid, than is laid. That foundation being Jesus Christ. If you read Luke you will also see that there was a dispute amongst the apostles. This dispute centred on who should be the greatest among them. What????? I thought Peter was the pope? If Peter was the pope, why didn't he settle the issue. Didn't the other apostles know he was the pope? So why would they get involved knowing Peter was the pope. Did Jesus speak up and defend "his pope"? Jesus did no such thing. In fact Jesus already had declared who he thought was the greatest. Matthew 11:11 Jesus says, " verily, I say unto you of them born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist."
May I suggest that we are not faced here and now not with a bad man in the chair of Peter but one who confuses the faithful by both word and deed. “Uncertain Trumpet” is what comes to mind.
The big elephant in the room here is Francis. He is never mentioned in this video cut, but he appears in the thumbnail that catches everyone's eyes, and thus one is safely led to conclude that the arguments presented here are meant to explain the Francis disaster. While this video is a good apologetic showing that popes are not immune to sin, it is irrelevant to the question of Francis' "pontificate." Mario Jorge Bergoglio isn’t merely a sinful Catholic: he’s a non-Catholic, as he has abundantly demonstrated. Even when a pope teaches the Church ordinarily in a "non-infallible" fashion, he is a safe guide to follow because of the gift of divine assistance given to him. A true successor of St. Peter cannot teach harmful error. But Francis regularly makes doctrinal error a part of his "magisterium." The only logical conclusion is that he cannot be the pope. This shouldn't surprise us, because for centuries we had been warned of the great delusion that would befall the Church, when God would send the "operation of error" which would deceive many - the "man of sin" who would sit in the very temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2). Claiming that Francis is the pope destroys the Catholic doctrine of the papacy and leads to the conclusion that the Church can give pernicious error to her own children.
Unless you can actually demonstrate where Pope Francis has made heresy in his magisterium, You have no case.
Demonstrate where he infallibly taught error in his magistratem and we'll talk.
You and I both know you can't.
@@thepalegalilean Hi! My first comment already has the answer. We don't need to demonstrate where Francis "infallibly taught error in his magisterium." Of course he won't teach heresy 'infallibly', otherwise nobody would ever be duped. He is a sly deceiver.
So please check my comment above. This is not a matter of infallibility, but of safety. It is always safe to follow the Church, even in her day-to-day teaching. The Church would never give poison to her children. The faithful don't need to brace themselves every time a pope speaks. Because he has divine assistance, a true pope cannot teach harmful error in his ordinary magisterium. If he could, the papacy would lose all meaning and purpose. So, does Francis teach harmful error in his ordinary magisterium? Can a Catholic safely submit to Francis' teachings?
If one can't, it means that he cannot be the pope.
What part of church doctrine teaches that a pope can't teach error? One pope was anathematized for heresy and he's still considered a pope.
@@1776iscool Great question. A pope can eventually teach errors of fact to the Church. But a pope can never teach *harmful* error to the Church. We just need to learn what is authoritatively taught by Vatican I, authorized theologians, and doctors of the Church such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales.
They explain that, in their day-to-day teaching, the popes don't enjoy infallibility, and might make mistakes concerning matters of fact. Yet it is inconceivable that popes will teach things that run against the faith. It is always safe to follow the pope. Just to stay on one example, we have the papal theologian Cardinal Franzelin:
"The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements - or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological - as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium." (John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII.)
But wasn't a pope anathematized for heresy? Yes, it was pope Honorius. That is explained in the very video above. Dr. Hahn shows that his condemnation was not for teaching heresy to the Church, but for not strongly fighting against some heretics on a certain occasion. So he was a "heretic" in a specific sense that is not commonly used today. But Honorius never taught harmful error to the Church. This has also been explained at length by authorized theologians. For example, check Louis-Nazaire Bégin, "La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes" (Québec: L. H. Huot, 1873), on chapter 6. See also Paul Bottalla, "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History" (London: Burns, Oates, 1868).
This was all confirmed by the first Vatican Council. The case of Honorius was specifically brought up, and the Fathers in union with Pius IX determined that no pope has ever taught heresy to the Church. Vatican I teaches that the popes will always remain "unblemished." They have the "gift of truth and never-failing faith, ... so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error." Other popes confirmed the same principle, explaining that the daily exercise of the pope's non-infallible authority is endowed with security so that we can feel safe following them. (See for example Leo XIII's Divinum Illud 5 and Pius XI's Mortalium Animus 9.)
🙄
Pope Francis is the Universal Vicar. Habemus Papem!
And he's doing a lousy job.
@@nathaniellathy6559 Are you a Rad Trad?
The bad kings of Israel did not invalidate the promises made to the house of David. More practically, do people really think a pastor of a local church, more so the pastor of a larger community (i.e, a bishop or the Pope), would not often fall prey to temptation and therefore would need a non-moral guarantee from the savior? In other words, no one should be surprised that David committed adultery, even murder (ex. Urriah the Hittite), despite the promise made to him, since free will was not what was safeguarged by God. Rather, it's that despite human weakness, as in David's example, that we see God's steadfastness in his promises and more. The fact that the savior came from the line of David despite its incredible shortcomings is a testament to God's righteousness and not based on human sanctity. 2k years later and this church of slobs, lik myself, is proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Double full stop.
well said
So leaders on earth that talk about god are liars or fools.. hey thats based brother XD god wouldnt let bad ppl carry out nonsense in his name. Clearly doesnt exist XD sry
Ever since I saw this discussion in its entirety I cannot get the image of @CameronBertuzzi standing in front of Christ, Christ asking him why he rejected his Church that he died for? And Cameron looking limp and saying “but I made this really great algorithm and it said you didn’t create a Church! Just look at the numbers!“
Or just read the book.. jesus talked ahout owning people as property and beating them and also clearly didnt know germs existed.. obviously not divine or divinely inspired
Theres no defending the Lucifarian pope Francise .
Bearing false witnes much?
Catholics will do backflips to avoid what's right in their face.