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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@Concernedcitizen23-r5n 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
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.
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!!
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.@@Saitamaaaaaaaaa123
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?"
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!
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.
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.
As opposed to individuals declaring THEY speak for God and arbitrarily interpreting the bible into hundreds of denominations? At least read one book on it. You sure seem like you are humble.
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
@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.
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.
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.
The young man with Scott Hahn offered to share his thoughts after Hahn but was not given the opportunity. I would like to have heard from him on the papacy in the Bible.
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."
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.
@@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!
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.
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
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.
Did I miss it? Or did they just never give an answer? Or were they comparing it to the Davidic reign? Because during that reign when Solomon was a bad king, they got divided, and then when other poor kings followed, each of those divisions got fully taken over. So perhaps that is what is happening to the catholic church? Or were they yeah theres some bad popes, its okay. I feel like noone answered anything please let me know what i missed
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.
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?
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”.
The rock upon Christ said that he was going to build his church was not Peter, but the truth which Peter spoke about in their conversation. Also, when Christ told him that he was giving him the keys to the Kingdom he had already told all of the other apostles the same thing. We put too much dependence on Counsels and earthly church authority, though we should respect and evaluate the things they say, when the Scripture says, “ work out your own plan of salvation with fear and trembling.”
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
Apostle John revealed and claimed that there were so many OTHER THINGS that Christ Jesus had done that were witnessed by early believers including the Apostles of the 1st Cent. A.D. that were not written down, which logically falls to the category of ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition of the Early Church of God in Christ in Asia Minor... Therefore, by God's Grace through FAITH, as a True Christian who worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth, we must believe in that revelation of Apostle John, (ref. John 21:25)... WHY?... Christ Jesus said, "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN, YET BELIEVED." (ref. John 20:29)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen. Take Note: After Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven, God's CHURCH in Christ started during the Pentecost when the HOLY SPIRIT arrived to them in the form of "Tongues of Fire," around 30 - 33 A.D. without the WRITTEN (manuscript) WORD of God (inspire Holy Scripture).... (ref. Acts 2)... only started with Oral/Spoken Tradition for around 30 years. The Early written Epistles/Letters of Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude came only after 60 A.D. before their Martyrdom... Peter died around 65 A.D. and Pauls died around 67 A.D. The written 4 Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelation were started to be written down only after the 2nd Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70 A.D... Around 70 years (or more) had passed since Christ Jesus had Died on the Cross, been Resurrected, and Ascended back to Heaven, and God's Church in Christ was first established on earth...that the Final Completion of the INDIVIDUAL Manuscripts (Written) Word of God (Holy Scripture), not yet compiled as a book (Bible), after the Original written Hebrew-Aramaic of REVELATION was translated into the Greek Language and distributed to the 7 Early Churches in Asia Minor was around 110 A.D... Only the Epistles/letters of Paul, Gospel of Luke and Mark, including Acts of the Apostles were originally written in the GREEK language... and the rest, in the original Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts, which was the native tongue of the Apostles (Peter, James, John, and Jude)... God/YHWH had chosen only SEVEN (7) N.T. writers inspired by the Holy Spirit... Seven (7) is a PERFECT Number for it reminded us all that on the 7th Day, God rested from His creation and sanctified it... Facts and Truth of the Matter, Biblically, Historically, and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
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. 😂😂😂
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.
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'.
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"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quite a bit of irony here talking about bad popes well being in the shadow of Pope Francis, who seems to like to dance right up to that line of what I’ll describe as the ‘H’ word, but doesn’t go over it. He seems heavy-handed with “mercy“ when dealing with people like ex-father Marco Rupnick and yet heavy-handed in the opposite direction when it comes to “fallen“ priests like Bishop Strickland and Frank Pavone. Perhaps it’s on a his own accord and perhaps it’s via protection of the Holy Spirit. Yes, this current pontificate is a challenge to our Catholic sensibilities in many ways. Let us not take our faith for granite and let us learn and know what we believe as taught down through history. Pray for the church and pray for Pope Francis-we have the pope that we deserve.
If someone wants a biblical defense for the papacy, then look to Joseph. Jesus, one with the triune God, was placed into an earthly home that was its own domestic church. Yet as we learn from Luke 2:51, Jesus “was subject to them.” Their domestic church (their family) is an example or our universal church. We have our Blessed Mother who brings Jesus to us. Mary represents the church itself. But we Catholics are the children in the home, like Jesus. And just like Jesus, we KNOW that Joseph (the Pope) is not our true Father. That God in Heaven is our true Father. Yet we, like Jesus, submit ourselves to the authority of the father of the earthly home - the popes. The church is a type of our Blessed Mother, bearing Christ in its unblemished tabernacles. And the popes are a type of Joseph - a foster Father who is filling in for our Heavenly Father, leading the family and protecting it. If Jesus Christ would subject himself to the authority of an earthly mother and an earthly foster father, why would we be incredulous at the idea of submitting ourselves to Holy Mother Church, and our papal Father? I think we should be praying for the intercession of St. Joseph for our popes. Side note: People bring up the fact that Joseph doesn’t have any dialog recorded in the bible. I wonder if that is because what the father of the house had to say was a page left blank that was to be filled in later by the 266 popes that were to lead and protect the house after him? If he HAD dialog in the bible, we would see Joseph as a unique figure with a unique message. But the fact that he did not leave a printed word for us to follow leaves him open to interpretation and mystery. His role and message for the family could be reimagined 266 times by the future foster fathers of our family. Another thought: if you read Luke 2:50-52, there are a couple additional interesting analogies. 2:50 says “And they understood not the word that he spoke to them.” This means that Jesus subjected himself to the authority of people who didn’t fully understand him yet. I think it is safe to say that our church hierarchy has never had a full, complete understanding of all the works of our God. But we, like Jesus, are still subject to their authority because God provided them for us, and we trust God. And 2:52 ends with “And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.” I think this could signify that, despite the fact that the we “understood not the word(s) that he spoke,” the Holy Spirit would advance within the church, increasing the wisdom of its members, increasing their grace.
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:
Don't get on religion bashing wagon , religion won't get you to heaven but it promotes community building which if United provides guidance and safety. This is the barrier the liberal world want to break as it's then easier to influence individuals with their woke agenda.
I am very sad about the approach you give in this discussion. I think, picking up a picture of Pope Francis in the thumbnail and then putting the line "Why bad popes don't disprove the papacy" is really showing a lack of respect. Critique is one thing, but this connection of word and picture is unworthy. Also, speaking about "restoring the Kingdom by appointing the Twelve" is ignoring everything the II. Vaticanum teaches about the equal value of old and new covenant. The Twelve were picked in representation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, not to restore a kingdom that never has been "destroyed", as the Kingdom of God is more than any earthly Kingdom.
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.
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.
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
That’s fine but we must remember God didn’t want to give a king, however since they continued to pray and plead for one, they got one a Benjamite. Not a very good thing.
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.
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.
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!
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!
@@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.
No pope can be an apostate or a heretic. Neither a moral or immoral man who is either can be a pope. A pope is the source of Catholic unity for both dogma and morality as a teacher of mankind. All those teachings are not subject to any change. The popes must be 100% Catholic. There were over 40 anti-popes. I'm not sure what the reason for these designations was.
Aren’t Popes“ Infallible”? Can’t have it both ways! He’s been a good Pope as far as I’m concerned. People always try to take his words and twist them, because they don’t have love in their hearts. I thought Christian’s were not supposed to judge others. “Authority”
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.
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*
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.
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.
Yea, the papacy today is the strong oak tree. Yea right! Rank pedophillia and blasphemy by the sound bite from the Pope. Thanks professor! You nailed it w the acorn analogy. Good grief!
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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)
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
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!
@@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.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.
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.
@@SpecCrun 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.)
![[#9 TIA] Lumen Gentium’s Hidden Insights on Mary and the Church w/ Dr Scott Hahn](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dJBunWATATE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#9 TIA] Lumen Gentium’s Hidden Insights on Mary and the Church w/ Dr Scott Hahn](/img/tr.png)
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.
AMEN!
And that Church is the Orthodox 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.
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.
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.
@@Concernedcitizen23-r5n 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
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.
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
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.@@Saitamaaaaaaaaa123
@@glennlanham6309 That sounds creepy and cultish.
i could just sit here and listen to Scott forever... his calm truthful voice is full of knowledge and direction
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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
its a pretty simple concept, but admittedly, there are some pretty stupid people. At the very least, pretty obstinate.
As opposed to individuals declaring THEY speak for God and arbitrarily interpreting the bible into hundreds of denominations? At least read one book on it. You sure seem like you are humble.
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!
Is he really?? That’s amazing!
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.
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!
🙏🏻🕊❤️🔥🕊🙏🏻
Thank you Mr. Hahn!
You put this into perspective wonderfully!
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.
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 God for Dr Scott Hahn.
Thanks much for this video.
Awesome three-way discussion.
The young man with Scott Hahn offered to share his thoughts after Hahn but was not given the opportunity. I would like to have heard from him on the papacy in the Bible.
Great video.
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."
That was great, thank you!!!
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!
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
Anyone else want Dr. Hahn to have a discussion with Gavin Ortland
Dr. Hahn is correct, since Jesus Christ, nothing has sustained like the Papacy. Omg 😮, that is a long time ago. 2,020 years.
A true gift of the catholic church.
Good 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.
Did I miss it? Or did they just never give an answer? Or were they comparing it to the Davidic reign? Because during that reign when Solomon was a bad king, they got divided, and then when other poor kings followed, each of those divisions got fully taken over. So perhaps that is what is happening to the catholic church? Or were they yeah theres some bad popes, its okay. I feel like noone answered anything please let me know what i missed
Yay Scott Hahn!
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.
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?
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”.
is there a video with the whole interview?
The rock upon Christ said that he was going to build his church was not Peter, but the truth which Peter spoke about in their conversation. Also, when Christ told him that he was giving him the keys to the Kingdom he had already told all of the other apostles the same thing. We put too much dependence on Counsels and earthly church authority, though we should respect and evaluate the things they say, when the Scripture says, “ work out your own plan of salvation with fear and trembling.”
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
i thought the election of the pope by the body of cardinals was Holy Spirit inspired. that does not seem to be true though?
I learned the early popes…would like to see more. Thank you.
Apostle John revealed and claimed that there were so many OTHER THINGS that Christ Jesus had done that were witnessed by early believers including the Apostles of the 1st Cent. A.D. that were not written down, which logically falls to the category of ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition of the Early Church of God in Christ in Asia Minor...
Therefore, by God's Grace through FAITH, as a True Christian who worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth, we must believe in that revelation of Apostle John, (ref. John 21:25)...
WHY?... Christ Jesus said, "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN, YET BELIEVED." (ref. John 20:29)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
Take Note: After Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven, God's CHURCH in Christ started during the Pentecost when the HOLY SPIRIT arrived to them in the form of "Tongues of Fire," around 30 - 33 A.D. without the WRITTEN (manuscript) WORD of God (inspire Holy Scripture).... (ref. Acts 2)... only started with Oral/Spoken Tradition for around 30 years.
The Early written Epistles/Letters of Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude came only after 60 A.D. before their Martyrdom... Peter died around 65 A.D. and Pauls died around 67 A.D. The written 4 Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelation were started to be written down only after the 2nd Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70 A.D...
Around 70 years (or more) had passed since Christ Jesus had Died on the Cross, been Resurrected, and Ascended back to Heaven, and God's Church in Christ was first established on earth...that the Final Completion of the INDIVIDUAL Manuscripts (Written) Word of God (Holy Scripture), not yet compiled as a book (Bible), after the Original written Hebrew-Aramaic of REVELATION was translated into the Greek Language and distributed to the 7 Early Churches in Asia Minor was around 110 A.D...
Only the Epistles/letters of Paul, Gospel of Luke and Mark, including Acts of the Apostles were originally written in the GREEK language... and the rest, in the original Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts, which was the native tongue of the Apostles (Peter, James, John, and Jude)... God/YHWH had chosen only SEVEN (7) N.T. writers inspired by the Holy Spirit... Seven (7) is a PERFECT Number for it reminded us all that on the 7th Day, God rested from His creation and sanctified it...
Facts and Truth of the Matter, Biblically, Historically, and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
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. 😂😂😂
Just because the Sailors at the time may be bad doesn't discount the strength or reliability of the boat
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 😅
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.
How does this coincide with papal infallibility.
Excellent !
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.
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.
So "Good popes prove that the Papacy is divine...and bad popes lead to later reforms, which proves that the Papacy is divine"?
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.
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.
Scott Hahn is great at explaining the faith!
good job Dr Scott Hahn
Quite a bit of irony here talking about bad popes well being in the shadow of Pope Francis, who seems to like to dance right up to that line of what I’ll describe as the ‘H’ word, but doesn’t go over it. He seems heavy-handed with “mercy“ when dealing with people like ex-father Marco Rupnick and yet heavy-handed in the opposite direction when it comes to “fallen“ priests like Bishop Strickland and Frank Pavone. Perhaps it’s on a his own accord and perhaps it’s via protection of the Holy Spirit. Yes, this current pontificate is a challenge to our Catholic sensibilities in many ways. Let us not take our faith for granite and let us learn and know what we believe as taught down through history. Pray for the church and pray for Pope Francis-we have the pope that we deserve.
If someone wants a biblical defense for the papacy, then look to Joseph.
Jesus, one with the triune God, was placed into an earthly home that was its own domestic church. Yet as we learn from Luke 2:51, Jesus “was subject to them.” Their domestic church (their family) is an example or our universal church. We have our Blessed Mother who brings Jesus to us. Mary represents the church itself. But we Catholics are the children in the home, like Jesus. And just like Jesus, we KNOW that Joseph (the Pope) is not our true Father. That God in Heaven is our true Father. Yet we, like Jesus, submit ourselves to the authority of the father of the earthly home - the popes.
The church is a type of our Blessed Mother, bearing Christ in its unblemished tabernacles. And the popes are a type of Joseph - a foster Father who is filling in for our Heavenly Father, leading the family and protecting it.
If Jesus Christ would subject himself to the authority of an earthly mother and an earthly foster father, why would we be incredulous at the idea of submitting ourselves to Holy Mother Church, and our papal Father?
I think we should be praying for the intercession of St. Joseph for our popes.
Side note: People bring up the fact that Joseph doesn’t have any dialog recorded in the bible. I wonder if that is because what the father of the house had to say was a page left blank that was to be filled in later by the 266 popes that were to lead and protect the house after him? If he HAD dialog in the bible, we would see Joseph as a unique figure with a unique message. But the fact that he did not leave a printed word for us to follow leaves him open to interpretation and mystery. His role and message for the family could be reimagined 266 times by the future foster fathers of our family.
Another thought: if you read Luke 2:50-52, there are a couple additional interesting analogies. 2:50 says “And they understood not the word that he spoke to them.” This means that Jesus subjected himself to the authority of people who didn’t fully understand him yet. I think it is safe to say that our church hierarchy has never had a full, complete understanding of all the works of our God. But we, like Jesus, are still subject to their authority because God provided them for us, and we trust God. And 2:52 ends with “And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.” I think this could signify that, despite the fact that the we “understood not the word(s) that he spoke,” the Holy Spirit would advance within the church, increasing the wisdom of its members, increasing their grace.
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
Does s bad CEO mean the end of a corporation
That makes alot of sense with this heretic we have rn. CHRIST is King.✝️🙏
Don't get on religion bashing wagon , religion won't get you to heaven but it promotes community building which if United provides guidance and safety.
This is the barrier the liberal world want to break as it's then easier to influence individuals with their woke agenda.
I am very sad about the approach you give in this discussion. I think, picking up a picture of Pope Francis in the thumbnail and then putting the line "Why bad popes don't disprove the papacy" is really showing a lack of respect. Critique is one thing, but this connection of word and picture is unworthy.
Also, speaking about "restoring the Kingdom by appointing the Twelve" is ignoring everything the II. Vaticanum teaches about the equal value of old and new covenant. The Twelve were picked in representation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, not to restore a kingdom that never has been "destroyed", as the Kingdom of God is more than any earthly Kingdom.
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.
Even Jesus and his dad both picked some lemons..seems to be a trend.Leave staff selection to professional HR people..
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.
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 catholic papacy Is all over the bible, Daniel, theselonions, AND ofcourse revelations.
Look at the Kings of Israel. The papacy is somewhat an extension of the monarchy. The lineage continues regardless of the obedience of the King.
That’s fine but we must remember God didn’t want to give a king, however since they continued to pray and plead for one, they got one a Benjamite. Not a very good thing.
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.
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.
So there was serious sin and major problems in the Church before Vatican II and Novus Ordo? Say it isn't so! 😃
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!
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.
No pope can be an apostate or a heretic. Neither a moral or immoral man who is either can be a pope. A pope is the source of Catholic unity for both dogma and morality as a teacher of mankind. All those teachings are not subject to any change. The popes must be 100% Catholic. There were over 40 anti-popes. I'm not sure what the reason for these designations was.
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.
Pretty much does.....
Aren’t Popes“ Infallible”?
Can’t have it both ways!
He’s been a good Pope as far as I’m concerned.
People always try to take his words and twist them, because they don’t have love in their hearts.
I thought Christian’s were not supposed to judge others.
“Authority”
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
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*
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.
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.
Yea, the papacy today is the strong oak tree. Yea right! Rank pedophillia and blasphemy by the sound bite from the Pope. Thanks professor! You nailed it w the acorn analogy. Good grief!
The only thing bad about this video is the image of pope Francis... you should show more respect...
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.
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.
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.
Not even possible to have Papal Infallibility! Only The Almighty is!!!!
you are 2 fries short of a happy meal aren't you?
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
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!
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
@@SpecCrun 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.)
🙄