A Protestant Asks Scott Hahn to Prove the Papacy... w/ Scott Hahn and Cameron Bertuzzi
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2022
- Watch the full interview here: • Conversion to Catholic...
Scott Hahn addresses Cameron Bertuzzi's (of Capturing Christianity) objection to the Papacy: Where was the Pope in the Early Church?
===
📚 My new book:amzn.to/3FXQDuj
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquinas.com/understa...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/Matt/
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquinas.com/support/
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas - Zábava
We have the best converted ex Protestant apologists like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Jimmy Akin, and many more. They were called to defend the Church.
i would not put steve ray in there but the others for sure!
I noticed that as well. The best Catholic apologists are former Protestants. I need to add Trent Horn into the mix.
Also Dr. David Anders.
I always watch his show Called to Communion on weekdays at 2:00 PM.
What do you mean converted ex Protestant - aren’t they both Christian’s ?
@@juanisaac5172 in my opinion the best guy on the papacy is mark bonocore , I wonder what he’s doing now . He’s a master of the papacy
Scott Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home” helped me come into full communion with the Church during the Easter Vigil in 1999. Thank you Scott!
@Xris. I am sorry for you. This man is a liar. The devil fooled you.
@@wesleysimelane3423 And how has this man fooled us by defending the Catholic faith with his reason and knowledge of Scripture?
Welcome home brother. Catholic, the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@wesleysimelane3423 haha, sorry the fool one is you. The follower of Protestanism, a church that have been created by a Roman Catholic priest rebel, heretic and apostate. You should repent and convert to Catholic too. Save your soul from false churches.
@@wesleysimelane3423 Silly rabbit - tricks are for kids... and I’m no kid. I thumped the KJV for many years before I really, really read it. Same for Dr. Hahn. I don’t see how any Bible-believing Christian whose faith has matured past “now lay me down to sleep” can be anything but Catholic.
Scott Hanh is the reason I’m blessed to be called Catholic.
X Muslim, x Protestant
Islam to Protestantism to Catholicism? Wow dude that's a long journey.
Really?? Not Jesus?? 🤔
My family was also Muslim, then Protestant, now exploring both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Very similar!
@@briemuss05 Bro💀
That's not strong
Well grounded in Protestantism and Catholicism plus a wealth of understanding of historical and theological context, Scott is a human library. What an intelligent man explaining things very clearly.
He is not well grounded in Protestantism. Have you read his popular ‘Home Sweet Rome’?
@@eireannemerald1382 he was a pastor not a deacon. That is what is so surprising. I promise you, if you read his “Rome Sweet Home”, it’s 100% clear that he was not well grounded in the Reformed Tradition. I am not saying that he was lying, I believe he was a pastor like he said. What I don’t believe is that he was qualified. I can give you an analogy of what he’s like:
Imagine if I were to tell you that I was a priest in a Catholic parish for a number of years. But then, all of a sudden someone asks me where we get the concept of the Trinity, since the word is nowhere in the Bible. Then imagine that I respond by saying that I NEVER thought about this question and I COULD NOT respond to it so I converted and I became a Unitarian. How this sound? Does it sound absurd? I would say yes and I assume that you would agree. This is EXACTLY what Hahn says except he does so with Sola Scriptura instead of the Trinity. It is a very bad look, just as you would agree that it is a very bad look for a priest to be asked to prove the Trinity with scripture, and then they are surprised, unable to answer, and convert because they say they NEVER thought about the fact that the word Trinity is not in the Bible. I’m sure you would agree that in this hypothetical, it doesn’t matter that the man was a priest, because he was definitely unqualified and should’ve known better about his own tradition
@@edwinnunez7538 lol, the word "unitarian" also nowhere to be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" is just a word to represent and describe a concept of God that found in the Bible.
@@edwinnunez7538 talk only. Why don't you go and debate him? I want to see how good are you, defending your protestant heretic religion
@@borneandayak6725 it looks like you didn’t actually read most of what I said. I am not a Unitarian heretic. Please read more carefully before making such weird comments. I did not say that the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible, and that therefore, the Trinity isn’t true. I believe in the Trinity. I was giving someone an example of a scenario where I am hypothetically a priest, and yet a REALLY BAD argument like that actually convinces me to change my views. This is similar to what Hahn describes in his book
God knew what He was doing when Scott was converted🙏
What an amazing man of God and a great human being🙏
FACTS"
--The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13
--The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41
@mitchellosmer1293 Do I smell a follower of Ellen G White in here? You know the SDA church started with the Millerites in the 1830's, led by a Baptist who predicted the second coming, and it didnt happen, right?
Christ's body ain't Baskin Robbins. There are thousands of different protestant sects, and only one Holy Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus, handed to Peter, then Linus and so on and so forth.
Our practices? What the apostles and St Paul practiced:
- Baptism required: See 1st Peter 3:21
- The Holy Eucharist more than just a reflective moment with crackers and grape juice : see John 6:53-56 AND 1 Corinthians 11:29-3.
Salvation through faith, worked out in Love :
The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can’t save ourselves, but we don’t need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the “one mediator between God and man” (1 Tm 2:5-6).
The saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism. We turn away from our sins, we are sorry for them, and we believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. Repentance shows our willingness to turn from things that keep us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace necessary to have faith and to live it. This belief is more than just “head knowledge.” Even the demons have that (Jas 2:19). It’s more than just believing you’re saved. Even the Pharisees had that (Jn 5:39). True, saving faith is one lived and exhibited daily: It is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
Sometimes the Church is accused of teaching “salvation by works,” but this is an empty accusation. This idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. Good works are required by God because he requires obedience to his commands (Mt 6:1-21, 1 Cor 3:8, 13-15) and promises to reward us with eternal life if we obey (Mt 25:34-40, Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10, Jas 1:12). But even our obedience is impossible without God’s grace; even our good works are God’s gift (Rom 5:5, Phil 2:13). This is the real biblical plan of salvation.
Communion of the Saints: Never does the Church instruct the faithful to conjure the spirits of the saints to carry on some two-way communication. There are no seances that try to make them appear, speak messages, tap tables, or anything of the sort.
The faith of the Church is that the saints are not really dead, but are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). The saints are alive in heaven because of the life they have received through their faith in Christ Jesus and through their eating of his body and blood.
The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11).
Because they are alive, we believe that we can go to them to intercede for us with God. We do not need to see apparitions or hear their voices in order to believe they will pray for us in heaven.
Marianism: Immaculate Conception/Assumption into Heaven. Even Martin Luther held to Marianism, and the first reformers did also. So, for 1500 years Believers held to this (400 of which operated by oral tradition, not new testament Bible as the Catholic Church hadn't compiled and published yet)
All reformers for at least 2 generations after these reformation held these beliefs. You can find unbiased, historical facts anywhere not associates with a particular denomination.
I know this is long and I apologize. But I think if you ask Our Lord directly in prayer how you should feel about the Catholic church, and actually try to understand where your issues with our faith derive from, you might be surprised at how much we in fact do love the Lord. And if not, at least you've studied up for better aplogetics. 😊
God didn't. Satan did.
@@rbnmnt3341 quote----God didn't. Satan did... unquote
Satan did what???
@@mitchellosmer1293 when Hahn was converted to Catholicism. Try to follow along. I know your church tells you what to say and believe, but try to follow along. I won't slap you with any anathema.
I love how he transcends
the Protestant view.
He doesn't condemn it.
He holds it up then lets the Catholic position shine through.
500 years before the "protestant view" this was one of the main issues that caused the Great Schism in 1054. The difference is the Eastern Orthodox church was there. Where is the support in early church history ( first 1000 years) for papal authority/supremacy over other bishops in the church?
@@doublem1971 - if you read Pope Saint Cement I Epistles to the Church in Corinth, you will find that support on record. Saint Clemen I, was a Disciple of St. Paul and would become Pope and Martyred for the Faith. So we are talking really at the beginning of everything. We also hear about this same Celement (who would become Pope) in St. Pauls's letters to the Philippians. If you want me, I can quote some texts relevant to your comment for you to read here in the thread. Just let me know
@@NothosXXI Thanks so much, I will check that out.
@@eireannemerald1382 Satan can charm people right out of following Christ. Satan has been educating people for 6000 years he should be good at it.
@@doublem1971 “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Council of Sardica
“If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
“If some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4).
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” - St. Optatus of Milevus (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).
ALL of the Ecumenical Councils had to be approved and ratified by the Pope to be declared Ecumenical.
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I - ratified by Pope Silvester I
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I - ratified by Pope Damasus I
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I - ratified by Pope Celestine I
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon - ratified by Pope Leo I
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II - ratified by Pope Vigilus
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III - ratified by Popes Agatho and Pope Leo III
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II - ratified by Pope Hadrian I
It was also various Popes who excommunicated heretics or gave the blessing for a bishop to do so.
The way Scott Hahn explains things, makes them so easy to understand. Thank you for making Church history so clear.
Blessings from Argentina
Lies are often easy to understand.
Are we not to read scripture for our truth as history is written by the victors and is not reliable for truth, like the scriptures are! an example
890 A.D. Worship of Saint Joseph.
You will find that in the roman Catholic church as an historical document and yet the early church never presented Joseph as anything other than what he was, the father of Jesus.
The council of Toulouse forbid the common believer from owning a bible, let alone reading it
Pope Paul II (pontificate 1464-1471) confirmed the decree of James I of Aragon on the prohibition of Bibles in vernacular languages.
The council of Toulouse resolved that a search in each parish was to be made for heretics and that if found their houses should be destroyed and that non-Latin translations of the Bible be destroyed . Sort of makes you wonder if they consulted the Holy Spirit that according to scripture to be the one who brings people to a saving knowledge of God. No precedent in all of scripture where a believer is to destroy a persons house if they don't believe.
Scott Hahn is a good speaker and has knowledge and is able to convey it but he also will not tell you the truth of the scriptures according to the scriptures ,but defers to roman Catholic teaching .
read the scriptures for yourself.
@@bobloblawb2593 I have read the bible many times and I fail to see where Christ gave His church the right to confiscate people's property, burn people at the stake, kill Christians that refuse to bow to the Catholic church, preached a false gospel of praying to saints and Mary, making an idol out of Mary as a queen, sell forgiveness of sins, and think a pope is God on earth, pretty sure that was all the catholic church
@@bobloblawb2593 If they only knew how sweet of a speaker Satan is
@@sammygomes7381 With all due respect. Problably the ones you have been told
I had the joy and blessing of having Dr. Scott Hahn as my Scripture teacher in college way back in 1993-1994 at the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Principles of Biblical Studies 101 and 102). That was by far my favorite class(es) of all time. He’s a blessing. I also really like Dr. Brant Pitre’s stuff. Both are excellent teachers.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
And Ex 20:8-11
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; 11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
>>>>DEAD KNOW NOTHING
---Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.
---Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?
---Ecclesiastes 12:7 And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
---Psalm 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.
---Ecclesiastes 9:6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.
---Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
----James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
---Job 14:10-12 But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep.
--****John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
---Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment. (Judgement on Judgement day)
---Acts 7:60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep (died).
---Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
-----Job 14:12 So a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep.
----Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
>>>>>How Old is Latin? - Ancient Language Institute
Romans
The birth of Latin took place around 700 BC in a small settlement sloping up towards Palatine Hill. The speakers of this language were called Romans, after their legendary founder, Romulus--(NOT GOD and NOT Christ)
>>>>The Catholic Church themselves state: "Sunday is a catholic Institution...From the beginning to the end of Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation) there is NOT a single passage which warrents the transferance of the weekly public worship from the last day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday) of the week" (Catholic Press, Sunday August 25, 1970.
"Sunday is a MARK of Our authority, the (catholic) Church is above the Bible and the transference of Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday observance is proof of that fact" (Catholic Record Sept. 1, 1923)
The Bible days "remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day" The Catholic Church ssys "NO! By my divine Power I abolish the Sabbath day (Saturday), and command you to keep holy the first day of the week (Sunday "the venerable pagan worship day of the sun"). And Lo - the entire civilized world bows down in reverend obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church" (Father Enright, "American Sentinel", June 1893)... and there are many more such blaspemious quotes by the catholic church themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p 402 second revised edition says, "The Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday!" And “Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is NO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY” - Stephen Keenan A Doctrinal Catechism p 174
I’m blessed to be a cradle Catholic. Left at 18, back at 55. It was in my DNA but I DIDNT want to come back - I thought I could find a reformed neo-Puritan church, but realised I couldn’t commit before I at least looked back into the Church. Well. It was the wellspring I was looking for
Apparently you like the idealogy of the catholic church. Have you ever compared their beliefs to the Holy Bibhe? Or do you even care?
#1--Christ, the head of the body, rules the church (Colossians 1:18).
#2---God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
#3--God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
#4--Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Mark 7:1-13).
#5--Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18,19).
#6--Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13,14; 1 Peter 5:7).
#7--Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
#8--God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
#8--Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
#9--Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
#10--The believer can know that he or she has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers(1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
#11---There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
#12--The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12,13).
(Symbols--NOT literal).
#13--The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
#14--The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
#15--The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
-Now, PROVE your beliefs with scripture.
**Prove these are wrong:*********************************************************
The Seventh Day--
It is Written: The ONLY DAY God rested on. (Gen 2:1-2, Ex 20:8-11)
It is Written: The Only day God BLESSED. (Gen 2:1-2, Ex 20:8-11)
It is Written: The ONLY day God Declared Holy. (Ex 20:8-11)
It is Written: The ONLY Day God named. (Isaiah 58:13)
It is Written: The ONLY Day God Claims as HIS HOLY DAY!!! (Isaiah 58:13)
What did Jesus say to Satan on the mountain? "IT IS WRITTEN!"
-- Where in the Holy Bible does GOD REST, BLESS, SANCTIFY Sunday as a Holy Day ?
Why bother proving you wrong? If you watched this and still don't accept the truth then how are others less knowledgeable than Dr. Scott Hahn? If you don't believe him you won't believe us.
@@catholicman8135 quote----Why bother proving you wrong? If you watched this and still don't accept the truth then how are others less knowledgeable than Dr. Scott Hahn? If you don't believe him you won't believe us.--unqoute
THAT IS the problem. Catholics REFUSE to quote the HOLY BIBLE!!!
All they have are mere men and their deceitful lies.
@@mitchellosmer1293i can prove this completely wrong and i will use many protestant bibles and point in which version they were changed for supporting non bíblical, stuff just compare a geneva bible with a kJV one which came after, misses words in ephisians verses 12 to justify in romans 13 the argument of obeying worthly governors WHICH was the words changed tk the kjv, changes words from obeyeth not to believeth not, kjv also addes verses about the trinity that were originally foot notes in the 200 latin translation, plus you dont even understand faith alone is just a play with words that doesnr contradict the catholic doctrine, like if you are once saved always saved, but you are only saved with saving faith which produces works and doesnr fail, because in the bible says love doesnt fail, than whats the difference tha when you fail younlose your salvation? Its none plus the rapture is unbiblical and made in the 1800 it predicts the end of the world like in a greek phrophecy not like in a hebrew one, so no sola fide isnt a sin freely Card, sola fide doesnr mean you are saved, means again that you will be saved and once you are you cant lose your faith thats why atheists that are former sola fide are going to be judged harshly, and sola scriptura would only work if the lutherans were the only denomination, but since he didnt predict what would happen which is 40+ denominations, his plan to be his own pope failed, plus he even added a word in his bible after paul saying faith saves he added alone after, indeed sincere faith saves, but that sincerity its much harder than you think, and thats what catholics phreach, and thats what luther actually phreached but fell deeply deeeply short of that, now let me tell you this if this isnt enought im gonna quote the original protestant: There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."- Martin Luther
@@Onlyafool172 ALL worthless opinions. You quote NO scripture!!!!
All you quote is by a mere man. Who cares about him or what you say???
Scott Hahn runs circles around my brain. His ability to explain, and his understanding of Scripture , Tradition and the Magisterium is no match for many
He runs circles around himself, as in “circular logic”.
What he means is he can’t dispute what Scott Hahn is saying.
I have read ALL of Scott Hahn’s work, multiple times. He was a major source of comfort and understand in my conversion to the Catholic Church (from Anglicanism) 15 years ago. Try his book Rome Sweet Home to start and you’ll see that he is probably the most substantive Catholic apologist of the last 50 years.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium You are in Communion with the Holy See of Rome so…glad for you.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium Sorry to hear that you don’t believe in the primacy of Rome. I guess you can follow the councils for any disputes which may arise…oh wait…which Council? I’m sure you will say YOUR Council. Others will say THEIR Council. See the problem? “And upon this rock I will build my Church…”. The primacy of Peter and the See of Rome are the only way to avoid such contests that can arrive at no resolution.
I'm a devout Reformed Protestant and this is the kind of Catholic that gets my ear. He doesn't bash us and he doesn't come across holier than thou as many lay Catholics seem comfortable to do behind their screen.
Most if us are not like that, also they may be like that because many protestants abd evangelicals don't even think Catholics ARE Christians there are two sides to that.
I pray that there will be more converts who will defend the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
God bless you, Scott Hahn.
Amen, June
quote---I pray that there will be more converts who will defend the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. --unquote
I pray that MORE will LEAVe it!!!
-----btw--there is NO such name in the Holy Bible of: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. -
Me too, Our Lady of Fatima asks us to pray for conversion of sinners.
@@lumarei1 quote----Me too, Our Lady of Fatima asks us to pray for conversion of sinners... unquote
Has been debunked!!!
Unfortunately, defense of one's faith has taken precedence over understanding. Religion has become like politics, one group talking over another without listening. Sounds of silence.
Praise God for Mr. Scott. Thank you for enlightening the world on the papacy.
Did he mention the part of the papacy thinking they were God/Christ on earth, or they ordered the killing of Christians that refused to become Catholics, the millions killed during the dark ages, Inquisitions, Crusades?
Atheists don't convert to Christ because of heart issues. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. I'm a follower of Christ who can't convert to catholicism because I listen to debates between to catholics and Christians and using logic in trying to understand each side I'm convinced that Christians have better arguments from the scriptures.
So if I'm just following the arguments using logic and trying to understand each side to the best of my ability and praying on the subject without ciese and still arriving at the same conclusion, what else am I to do? I won't simply, blindly become catholic when it contradicts what I perceive to be good and logical arguments against it.
I love Jesus Christ. He has never failed me. I'm convinced he doesn't want me to be Roman Catholic. I hear HIS voice and follow it. Does God want me to throw out logic?
@@johnsoto7414 Compare the word of God with the teachings of different churches. There is of course only on Church Christ started and that is the Christian Church, though it might go by different names. When a church starts pushing their own agenda on you telling you it's the word of God, beware. Being brough up Catholic, going to a catholic school and an altar boy I studied all the Catholic documentation but was never encouraged to read the bible. When I did start reading the bible I was amazed at the truth of God's word. Keep your eyes focused on Christ and you will be fine.
@@sammygomes7381 thanks for the encouragement. Sounds like we're eye to eye. I think each church has a common thread of believers within it that hear God's truth and follow it and know when they're hearing something that contradicts his truth and throw it out
Terimakasih telah memasukkan terjemahan bahasa Indonesia. Anda tahu ini sangat membantu pengetahuan iman saya. Terimakasih Banyak, Tuhan memberkati pemilik Chanel ini.
Wow, Scott Hahn does an awesome job explaining The Catholic Church.
@YAJUN YUAN In Caesarea Philipi where Jesus is speaking in Matthew 16, there is an old Pagan temple on top of a rock, and Jesus is implying by being here that there is a false god, a false temple, and a false rock. There is also a cave that they used to believe had no bottom to it, which they called the jaws of death, or the gates of hades.
The keys of the kingdom that Jesus speaks of refers to the Royal Steward who carries the keys to the kingdom of David, whatever he opened stayed opened and whatever he closed stayed close. He had access to things such as the treasury, the city gates, he could exclude people from the kingdom or include them in, etc. He had power given to him by the king and acted in his place while the king was away, yet he obviously was not the king himself.
Jesus in Matthew 16 is delegating Peter to a position of the Steward of the Kingdom of God. After Babylonian exile, the throne of Israel was vacant, and the kingdom no longer existed, yet the angel Gabriel said to Mary that her offspring will inherit the kingdom of David, yet his kingdom will be eternal. So Jesus re-establishes the kingdom of David, and appoints Peter as the new Steward, and delegates him the keys to the Kingdom of God, and appoints him the power to bind and loose.
The temple at Caesarea Philipi was also the worship centre for the Pagan god known as Pan. Pan was the Pagan god of sheep and shepherds. So what Jesus is doing here is appointing Peter as the shepherd to his sheep which can explicitly be found in John 21:15-17 when Jesus says "Simon Son of John, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep."
All of a sudden the words "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" makes a lot more sense when you look at it from the fact that Jesus was a Jew, he is also called the Son of David, and he is clearly re-establishing the kingdom that was lost.
There is clear evidence that Peter has a significant role among the Apostles. I will stick with the shepherd, and those appointed by the Holy Ghost to be his successors. I'll take that bet any day over placing my bet on a Protestant pastor who will tell me something astronomically different than the Protestant pastor right down the road, who will tell me something astronomically different from another Protestant pastor, etc. etc.
He doesn't have an OPEN BIBLE. Hahn paraphrases the Bible.
@@IzakD8 I thought your big text wall was against the papacy until I got to the end lol. 1st Peter 5:1 seems pretty clear to me. Also, several papacy’s ago would not recognize today’s Catholic Church. Yes, there are several loony Protestant churches, but back in the day you yourself would be seen as a heretic for believing what the modern Catholic church teaches. Your observation falls short when you don’t know the history of the church you call supreme/settle for the doctrine of man. Pagan bead prayer chants to Marry, transubstantiation, “temporarily” losing your salvation upon missing confession/communion, not maintaining the other sacraments puts your salvation in peril… not all of these things were acknowledged as doctrine all at the same time. The only way you can reconcile the papacy and all of this extra-biblical doctrine is if Peter really was the first pope and then everyone after him was divinely selected by god. Can you convince me that Peter was the beginning of the papacy? I want to be convinced.
@YAJUN YUAN quote---"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18, NABRE--unquote
To quote that to prove your opinion shows how little you know of the Holy Bible!!!!
Quote just one verse in all scripture that tells of anyone calling Peter the "rock". (THERE IS NONE!!!)
Mathew 16:18 The Rock
Well whoever is saying that Jesus built his church on Peter needs to repent and stop telling that lie. Jesus built his church on what Peter said. He asked Peter who he tells people Jesus is. Peter said thou are the Christ the Son of the Living God. Jesus said that is what I build my church on. That he is the Christ, the Son of God. He didn't tell Peter he is building his church on him but what Peter said .
**** Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4).
CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
-------The Father commanded us to keep Jesus's commandments 1 John 5:3.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(No--Catholics are ABOVE the Commandments)
******ROMAN CHURCH
Adopts Sunday
The authoritative acceptance of Sunday as a day of rest and worship may be traced to Pope Sylvester, who in 325 A.D. decreed that the first day of the week should be called the Lord's day.
--------The Lord's Day
Until the year 325 A. D. many of the church fathers wrote of the first day of the week as the Lord's day; but they could bring forth no Scriptural authority for giving it this name.
Not one of them ever attempted to use Revelation 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," to prove their assertion. As a matter of fact, the only conclusion a Bible student can come to is that "the Lord's day" in this text refers to the Sabbath, for the Sabbath is the only day that the Lord has anywhere acknowledged as His day. But the term "Lord's day" as applied to Sunday by the fathers had to have authority before it could be incorporated into the dogmas of the church. Therefore in the year 325 Pope Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time of Constantine, by his so-called apostolic authority changed the title of the first day of the week to the Lord's Day.-"Historia Ecclesiastica" per M. Ludovicum Lucium, cent. iv, cap. x, pp. 739 ,740, Ed. Bailea, 1624
@@eireannemerald1382 quote---Scott Hahn is a true scholar.--unquote
Scholar or deceiver?
RCC vs BIBLE
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a c--- disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
(Do not go beyond what was written?
The little saying “do not go beyond what is written,” is found in Paul's argument to convince the Corinthians to be one in Christ (1 Cor 1:10- 4:21).
***Catholics claim Sunday is the day of worship, a holy day.
If that is so,
QUOTE the HOLY BIBLE that says GOD RESTED on the first day of the week. (That would make God a liar)
QUOTE the HOLY BIBLE that says GOD BLESSED the first day of the week.
QUOTE the HOLY BIBLE that says GOD SANCTIFIED (made holy/ special) the first day of the week.
QUOTE the HOLY BIBLE that says GOD declares the first day of the week as HIS Holy Day.
QUOTE the HOLY BIBLE that says GOD named the first day of the week.
Fans of Scott Hahn from Malaysia. God bless all of us. Amen
Malaysia is a tough situation I’m sure. Take care 🙏
Scott Hahn is part of the reason for my return to the Catholic Church. His book/series The Fourth Cup brought clarity to me that I never knew while growing up in the Catholic church with my own dad as a Deacon! I usually have to listen to him twice to wrap my head around his intelligence, but I'm so grateful for his wisdom and the fact he is so willing to share that wisdom!
FACTS"
--The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13
--The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41
>>>>>
CATHOLIC QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH
#1---It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.
Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.
--#2.------Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope.
Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950.
--#3--Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit - or blame - for the change.
This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997
--#4---Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; -they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;...
Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer
--#5.---Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174
-#6-----Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences?
A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week.
If, then he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained?
Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 181
-#7-----Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50
--#8---Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists?
A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. ...
Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide?
A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ...
Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7.
-#9----The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.
-#10----The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.
The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.
-#11----All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible.
The Catholic Virginian, To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947).
---#12--... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.
-#13----Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.
-#14----But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed.
They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.
The Faith of Millions
--#15---Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.
Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995
-#16----If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.
Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.
#17-----The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.
Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213.
-#18----What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants?
Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating.
Here it is officially: You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?
This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded.
The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.
Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4.
--#19----There is but one church on the face of the earth which has the power, or claims power, to make laws binding on the conscience, binding before God, binding under penalty of hell-fire. For instance, the institution of Sunday. What right has any other church to keep this day? You answer by virtue of the third commandment (the papacy did away with the 2nd regarding the worship of graven images, and called the 4th the 3rd), which says 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'
But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Any schoolboy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week.
T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893.
--#20----Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.
C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895.
--#21---Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.
Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157
--#22---The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth
Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.
--#23----The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
---John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994
...--#24----pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'.
John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See here for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’)
-#25----The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.
William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809
I could listen to Scott Hahn forever. ❤🙏
And thus, because you would rather listen to Hahn the con, rather then the word of God, you may rest assured you will receive nothing but a passport to hell.
@@eireannemerald1382 hey prove Mo Jo wrong as that is a pretty serious accusation concerning your life.
@@eireannemerald1382
Mo Jo
1 month ago
And thus, because you would rather listen to Hahn the con, rather then the word of God, you may rest assured you will receive nothing but a passport to hell.
Eireann Emerald
3 weeks ago
@Mo Jo Hey Mo. Careful with that prejudice.
Bob Loblawb
4 hours ago
@Eireann Emerald hey prove Mo Jo wrong as that is a pretty serious accusation concerning your life.
Pack plenty of suntan lotion.
@@eireannemerald1382 Don't confuse truth with prejudice.
Scot Hahn books already translated in Indonesian language and I'm have the whole collection of his books. Fascinating stuff. God bless you...
...Scott Hahn the Presbyterian... probably the most inspirational human being I have yet encountered on planet earth. I was a Presbyterian too! :) God got us both real good! :) :)
It’s safe to say that this conversation helped lead Cameron to Catholicism
No Eucharist no church its impossible, St Peter was the first pope, Mary is the immaculate conception
@@joanofarc708 quote--- St Peter was the first pope,--unquote
PROVE IT !!!!
No where in the bible will you read about anyone being a pope, Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Each church group throughout the world is overseen by elders and deacons. That's it. Why complicate something so simple . Jesus began his church in 33 a.d. The Catholic Church did not exist until 1054AD.
RE: Mathew 16:18 This verse has to be put in context with what comes before it. The rock Jesus is talking about is the confession Peter makes, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Upon our confession of faith God continues to build His church. The church is not a building, but the fellowship of believers. Remember, scripture always has to put into context. We can't pull individual scriptures out to make whatever point we are trying to express.
Peter simply confesses that Jesus was the son of the living God . And Jesus told him upon this he would build his church . Peter was no different than any person that will summit to Christ and do what he told us to do to be saved in this new covenant.
*****St. Peter address himself as elder in 1 Peter 5:1 and 2 Peter 3:2 as apostle.
1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:
2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
*****Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4).
Quote-----Mary is the immaculate conception--unquote PROVE IT from the Holy Bible!!!
----Immaculate Conception | Definition, History, & Feast | Britannicawww.britannica.com › ... › Religious Beliefs
Immaculate Conception, Roman Catholic dogma asserting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved free from the effects of the sin of Adam (usually ...
NOT BIBLICAL--A CATHOLIC DOGMA---
NOT BIBLICAL----If Mary NEVER sinned--then she is a liar. And so is God.
Romans 3:23 - KJV Bible - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"-ALL!!!
1 John 1:8---If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
---Spm who is righjt? The HOLY WORD of God--or the catholic Church???
@@mitchellosmer1293 faith without works is dead James 2 duh, just keep following Martin Luther and ill keep following christ,
@@mitchellosmer1293 you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church duh
Which is sad and crazy that this guys explanation of the papacy did that… shows you he was unstable in his beliefs
Word salad. His defense for papacy confirms there is no case at all from scripture, nor in early church history!
I’m glad you saw through that.
No defense in scripture? Isaiah 22 and Matt 16. Peter was given the same office by his King that Shebna held and Eliakem was given by his King. Look up hebrew word “Al Habayit”.
Haven't watched yet,but I know Mr. S. Hahn is an explosion boom of insight. Let's brace to learn. Proudly Catholic
You couldn’t wait eight minutes before you posted? Lol. Good thing he didn’t droll…
Deus Vult. Catholic from Malaysia.
quote---Proudly Catholic--unquote
Am sorry !!!
Are you aware of all the false doctrines catholics teach???
****Roman cult contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways!
RCC vs BIBLE 2
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + partake Roman sacraments + believe in roman pontiff + be in roman cult = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
16. RCC says Sunday is the day of worship, just becaise Jesus arose on that day. Yet--The HOLY BIBLE says the SEVENTH DAY IS the ONLY day God rested on, blessed and made Holy.--Gen 2:1- 3, Ex 20:8-11.
Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a catholic disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
Thanks, but I'll follow Christ and embrace Him.
Happily a Protestant here. I will remain Protestant as I can’t biblically agree with a variety of doctrines and dogma from the RCC, but I can greatly appreciate this video and all he had to say. It gives valuable insight into the historical formation of the church and its progression to the modern day. However, I would also argue that this doesn’t actually reinforce the Papacy as much as it does the opposite. Then you factor in some of the abusive and degenerate behavior from some of the past Popes, which could have been avoided by modeling the apostles, rather than progressively consolidating total authority into the hands of one office. Regardless of our differences, may the Lord Jesus bless each one of you.
Thank you for your comment.
My thoughts are similar. Christians should support each other. Leave the differences up to God to sort out. The main focus is our love of God and Jesus, Our Creator and his son and what Jesus did for us through the love of His Father.
Instead of ‘attacking’ another Christian, go out and use your energy to convert an unbeliever.
The ‘door knockers’, I commend their spirit, their bravery in going door to door. (When they do not have young children with them in the heat!) However, trying to convert another Christian to their view of Christianity, they need to move on. (We had people come for over 12 months, trying to change our view. We let them speak, never rude but still we remain Catholic)
Scott Hahn at his best! Wow, what a perfect explanation.
Thank you Scot. You make my being a catholic stronger as ever
Just love listening to Scott Hahn. He is such a gift to us from God. his knowledge and wisdom is truly inspiring don’t you think. I loved his book Rome Sweet Home and would love to have him and his wife Kimberly to dinner wouldn’t that be a treat. Cheers from Australia.
Seeking the truth without a pre desired conclusion has brought me home to the Catholic faith.
God bless the work of Matt Fradd
Love it! Absolutely Dr Scott Hahn is right he thinks and speaks in terms of lectures and books too.
How to be Christian CZcams channel is great and goes through the logic problem of the church authority. Take a look! May God be praised on all the work you do.
How to be a Christian or Catholic?
How to be a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ or a catholic?
@@bobloblawb2593 I'll stay with Christ.
@@sammygomes7381 As will I.
We Catholics are Christ centered
That was an excellent description of the origin of the papacy and how its succession is applied.
A few honest questions from someone who has sincerely looked at this debate...
1. The passing of authority was well established in the Old Testament, so it seems hard to believe that Jesus would not of been more explicit. In fact, after the apostles already argued about who would be the greatest (Luke 9), they did it again in Luke 22. After almost 3 years of following Jesus and hearing His instruction, at the Last Supper they are arguing again who will be the greatest. There is clearly no indication from them that they thought Peter would have greater authority over them. Jesus gave them the same authority for binding and loosing and no other sense of greater authority was given to Peter.
2. In I Corinthians 1:10 the Apostle Paul is addressing the issue of divisions in the Corinthian Church (the early 60s AD) and he neglects to mention anything about Peter being the authoritative successor even when he mentions Peter's name along with others. Paul easily could have put the divisions to rest by mentioning Christ and then Peter as the successor. Paul met with Peter and James for 2 weeks (Galatians 1:18) and he did not get any sense that Peter was the head of the Church. In fact, it leads to the last point...
3. Acts 15 shows James as the head of the Jerusalem Church which lasted for 30 years. Mr. Hahn did not explain why Peter submitted to James' ultimate decision. He simply asserts that it's the product of developed doctrine over centuries, yet the disciples knew nothing of it even when it was a pressing question in their day as well as in the first 35 years of the Church.
Matthew 16 was not even used as a proof text for papal succession until the 3rd century AD. If it was I would love to know why there was not any consensus among the church fathers on Matthew 16 in the early centuries of the church. Just some honest thoughts and questions...
Why do you say Peter "submitted" to James' decision? There was a discussion, but it was concluded by Peter claiming authority over the presentation of the gospel to the Gentiles, with the evidence thereof subsequently testified to by Paul and Barnabas. Peter's authority thus being evident, James "judged" that they should not trouble the Gentiles, but only write to them. It was "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" who decided to send men with the letter to Antioch. "With the whole church" sounds a lot like this:
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that *while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor*, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
@@thereaction18 Sorry my friend but no way can I carefully read Acts 15 and not conclude that James was the authoritative person in the Jerusalem council. My Bible does not say "James judged..."; it says James said, "It is my judgement, therefore, ..." as a definitive pronouncement. Nowhere in the text does it suggest that Peter concurred with that pronouncement as an authoritative approval.
In reference to Peter's statement about salvation extending to the Gentiles, I also find it interesting that he said, "He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith." But that leads into another debate.
@@thereaction18 I appreciate your reply to this question. When we read Acts 15:19 it literally says in Greek, "Dio ego krino" which means "Therefore, I judge..." In the Greek it is emphatic that James is stating that he is the one making the ultimate judgement. Paul, Barnabas and Peter all speak, James listens, evaluates based on Scripture and then makes the official proclamation. Peter doesn't say it, Paul doesn't say it, only James because James was the bishop of Jerusalem which was the preeminent city of the early church before Jerusalem was destroyed. What is interesting is that after Acts 15 Peter is not mentioned again in the rest of the Book of Acts which is amazing since it is the book that chronicles the expansion of the early church. I appreciate your response, but if you stick with the text itself you do not get what you suggest above. All you get is James making the final official proclamation after hearing from the other apostles and then the rest of the church accepting it. This is why no apostle thought Peter had greater authority than them and it's why Paul never appealed to Peter's authority when dealing with divisions in the Church.
@@gregm6894 I appreciate the reply my friend. The issue is that in Greek it literally says "Therefore, I judge." The English versions are very good and communicate the point very well, but if a version translates that text in a more passive manner or in a manner that sounds like it is just James' mere opinion, then those translations are incorrect. The text is clear that James says "Dio ego krino." Dio means "therefore." Ego is the first person singular for "to be" which is "I am or I" and krino means "I judge." Very simple straightforward translation. This on top of the fact that James was the Jerusalem Bishop for 30 years (not Peter which would be odd if Peter was the head of the Church).
The original point is that there is no sense at all from the New Testament that Peter had primacy over any of the apostles. There are many instances where it could of been said and never does anyone mention Peter's authority (for example I Corinthians 1 when Paul is dealing with divisions in the Corinthian church with respect to authority.). He even mentions Peter's name among several and never says anything about Peter's authority to settle the dispute.
The other question I asked originally is why after 3 years with Jesus and hearing all he said in public and private communication would the disciples be arguing multiple times (last time at the Last Supper) who the greatest would be? Clearly they did not have any self-understanding that Peter was being given successive authority. If the disciples didn't see it and the early Church in Jerusalem didn't see it and Paul never mentions it, it seems very odd that centuries later it is conveniently discovered by the very people who benefit from that power and authority. Just some honest thoughts and questions.
@@TheAreteWay I was born and raised in the Catholic Church and like many others, all it did was to vaccinate me against true Christianity -- until I hit 51 and Jesus graciously answered my weak prayer for Him to take control of my life. If Scripture actually supports all the teachings of the Catholic Church, why would it not have greatly encouraged study of Scripture for the many hundreds of years of it's existence? That did not happen until very recent generations when the Catholic Church saw that people were studying God's Word and seeing the clear contradictions with Catholic teachings -- and leaving.
I still cannot seem to get a Catholic to clearly state whether they believe, as Scripture clearly states, that salvation is found in Christ alone -- since their Catechism states otherwise.
Hahn's concept of organic development precisely demonstrates the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings of tradition. While a practice or devotion can grow in order to preserve a doctrine, a doctrine cannot, in Orthodoxy. Thus, because the Pope did not have this jurisdictional power in the early Church, he cannot have it now as a matter of divine revelation.
What makes you think the pope did not have jurisdiction? "I give you the keys" sounds a lot like he was given jurisdiction.
@@thereaction18 That was Peter, not the Pope. Note also that the power associated with the keys was eventually given to all the Apostles later on.
The Orthodox view you laid out makes more sense to me, seems more logical generally, and less risk of perversion.
The whole Roman emperor having such a prominent and authoritative role in early Christendom doesn't seem to leave much room papal supremacy until the power of emperor starts to decline
@@quidocetbenediscit Peter was the first Pope. He did have jurisdiction as it seems you just admitted. Peter's jurisdiction was obviously during the early church. The apostles shared this jurisdiction from the beginning, not just later on. How do I know this? Because the jurisdiction belongs to Jesus from the beginning, and he ordained it to be exercised through his apostles. He literally breathed on them telling them to receive the spirit. He commanded them to be one as he and the father are one. They acted together from the beginning. Peter always represented Christ among them in their official public acts. Maybe not as much by his personal example, earning Paul's rebuke. But completely consistent with the current understanding of the authority and infallibility they exercise. See, the definition of doctrine is not the de novo creation of doctrine. It is more a recognition and explication of what is already true. Infallibility extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends, through scripture and tradition preserved by apostolic succession. All are obliged to conform.
@@thereaction18 Once again, you are arguing a non-sequitur. Peter had primacy among the apostles. He, and the apostles, then conveyed the power of binding and loosing to the bishops as their successors (for example, in Antioch, where Peter ordained the patriarch there). Thus Peter is the rock on which the Church is founded, but EVERY bishop is a successor of ALL the apostles, including Peter.
The Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) had immediate jurisdiction only over Rome. However, out of respect for the Roman Church's antiquity, its source in both Peter and Paul, and most importantly, its placement in the old Imperial capital, the other Churches agreed in an ecumenical Council to give Rome some measure of primacy in the Church. However, the excommunication of Rome made that function no longer available to them.
This is excellence from Dr Scott Hahn
🙏 For all the world to hear!
Wonderful to listen to Scott Hahn who is so clear in elucidating the apparent complexity of these matters. Let us all pray that we may be one. But meantime one on Christ and love.
I loved the brilliance of the conversation and the explanation was magnificent the Holy Spirit is you.
........."the Holy Spirit is you"?
@@harrypridmore460grammar native much?
@@harrypridmore460 Ha. The liberal autocorrect of CZcams would not allow me to write Na-zi.😅
The question was: "How do we defend Vatican 1's claim that the papacy was always understood as it is today?". Scott Hahn DIDNT defend that. He merely reiterated the gradualism that Vatican 1 contradicts
Vatican 1 did not contradict development. "always understood" in the sense that doctrines like the Trinity and full-orbed Christology, original sin, the canon, etc. were "always understood" yet also developed and were not explicitly affirmed or fully articulated in the early church.
@@cronmaker2 in what sense can a doctrine, or anything for that matter, be both developed and simultaneously always understood? I think because it's the church saying these things people just assume it makes sense.
I don't think it does..explain it to me
@@thuscomeguerriero vat1 states "May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding" so it clearly embraced some type of development. The "always understood" is referring to the core principles the final doctrine developed from. For example Christological doctrines are complex and took multiple councils and centuries to define, but the core principle - Christ is divine - was "always understood". With the papacy, the core principles of Petrine primacy and apostolic succession and a unique role of the Roman see was "always understood", but how that primacy was to be interpreted and it's consequences developed.
@@cronmaker2 I have a problem with that tho.
If we interpret..and reinterpret Petrine Primacy, or the unique role of the Roman sea..there isn't any logically possible way of talking about them as being always understood given the fact that the.issues are being interpreted, and reinterpreted.
@@thuscomeguerriero A few things - development cannot contradict what came before, only deepen and build upon. So a developing "interpretation" needs to be qualified in that sense. Relatedly, all doctrines, no matter the level of development, are part of the deposit of faith. So although a full-orbed Christology or robust view of Petrine primacy including infallibility might not have been articulated in the 2nd century, it was always part of the deposit. This is why the vat1 decree (citing Vincent of Lerins from the 6th century) says both that "understanding increases" but also within the "same understanding" - that might be confusing, but it's not incoherent. This is the sense in which language like "always understood" needs to be, well, understood. Otherwise you are left saying no Christian at any time understood the faith. Doctrines have developed - no matter your denomination, you will not see a 21st century articulation of those beliefs in the 2nd century - and will continue to develop.
Can someone explain this more simply? Cause to me as a non-Catholic I heard:
- Its like an acorn where it takes time to grow
- Disorganisation, organisation, disorganisation
- Some guys wrote a book and he referred to some other guy who noticed a link from the Bishop of Rome directly back to Peter
None of which make any sense to me in trying to answer the question, which was about the basis for the Papacy in scripture.
And then in the last 1 minute he rattles off a couple of scriptural things in quick succession:
- Primacy from the Old Testament w/ Matthew 16
While the Old Testament is useful, Christ definitely did not reinstate all that's in the OT, so that only matters if its backed up in the NT - so what's the Matthew 16 he didn't explain?
- "Succession implied in the notion of the keys of the kingdom"
If the keys are essential then yes, this one makes sense.
- "Infallibility implied when you hear Jesus say "on this rock will I build My church... so that whatever you bind on Earth will have already been bound in Heaven"" + says through the Holy Spirit, God can work through infallible men to teach infallibly
This one depends on what you mean by infallibility: does it mean 24/7? Or only when it comes to decision on doctrine? I don't know much so I'd like to have someone explain, because Peter most definitely was not infallible even after Christ bestowed this upon him
But also,
He then goes on to say that inherently that infallibility passes down to the successors. He actually says "why not". That's not a very scripturally-based point, that's a "that sounds like it makes sense" point, but that's most definitely not enough to base doctrine on. So if anyone has anymore please help.
You’re pretty spot on. I wouldn’t call this a good defense of the papacy at all. Here’s a well reasoned Protestant pastor talking about Catholicism czcams.com/video/7ZVHHmCOjOg/video.html
Professor Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home brought back a Dr to the Catholic Church who had been away for 40 years. A marvellous man in Jesus.
7:22 "We already know that Christ can send the Holy Spirit down to infallible men like Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John so that they will not only teach infallibly but also write Gospels that are infallible and authoritative. So why not just sustain that project by empowering not only Peter but all of his successors." Well said, Scott.
Matthew 16:18-19 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
"So why not just sustain that project by empowering not only Peter but all of his successors..." Because this isnt described in Scripture. Eisegesis.
@@m.miller7674 Sola scriptura is not described in scripture either
@@m.miller7674 The word Trinity is not mentioned in the bible, nor really explained, and yet you believe that, correct? Why, using your logic? The word bible is not in the bible, nor is a description of how to close the canon of Scripture and what books should be included (or not) in the bible. Where in the bible does it say the only place that captures the Word of God is the bible, and no where else? If it is, doesn't it make sense that the bible would mention that? Of course it does. Where in the bible does Jesus tell his disciples that instructions for the Christian faith must all be in a bible? When and where in the bible is a description of Jesus telling the apostles to get all teachings organized into one book? It took almost 4 CENTURIES to canonize a bible and 1500 YEARS for the bible to be readily available to the common man. Common sense should tell anyone that SOME EXTERNAL AUTHORITY had to decide these things and to keep the deposit of faith, develop it with guidance from the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, and to teach the world. And it was all accomplished by the church Jesus started...the Roman Catholic Church. Truth.
@YAJUN YUAN ...you are making my point, and not negating it. I am not mistaking anything. I was addressing those who claim the word pope is not in the bible....that absence does not negate the concept of the papacy....nor does the absence of the word Eucharist negate the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. Perhaps you picked the wrong person for your comment?
@@shibaos Describing a lineage of authority (something that is temporal and explicit) is not the same as accepting the self-professed Word of God to be ultimately authoritative. Sola Scriptura is simply a self-evident truth when the Word of God is self-authenticating. Every single book of the Bible does not "claim" explicitly to be the Word of God; yet we believe it because we know it to be true. Scripture has internal consistency, inerrancy, and harmony.
That man is something else. What a truly beautiful mind. I never tire of listening to him, I really don't.
Love this respectful conversation.
My goodness, a lot of praise for this response. Can someone of the plethora below please summarise what his major points were because they were obviously so convincing to them.
1. Primacy in the OT
2. Succession implied in the notion of the keys in Matt 16
3. Infallibility implied by Jesus in the same passage - Matt 16.
Entirely unconvincing.
He did a lot of dancing around but no solid points.
As a Discerning Christian (Prot to Cath), I am just happy to have more truth be spoken and shared to fellow Christians about why Catholicism is more than just a church.
Excellent breakdown, and love the acorn analogy.
Cheers
The Bible clearly states no additions to His word. You don't see catholicism as adding to GODs word? Don't you see the comparison to what the Pharisees did and which Jesus acted out against?
Serious questions
@@williamgullett8071 protestant add three doctrines that can't be found anywhere in the Bible :
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Sola Fide
3. Sola Gratia
Lol
@@williamgullett8071 the word "protestant" itself can't be found anywhere in the Bible. Lol
@@borneandayak6725 For a long time I've always been astounded by catholics who don't understand what those terms mean.
When a catholic who comments on those things they show they don't understand who Jesus was, what GODs word means, and what true faith is. It means tat catholic is beholden to their church and not Jesus, not GOD, and not what faith is.
Those words aren't in the Bible...they are definitions of what true Christianity is.
Sola Scriptura- "by Scripture alone"
Sola fide- "by faith alone"
Sola gratia- the grace and goodwill of GOD.
Those things, while not in the Bible by word, are the definition of what true faith is. Scripture...Faith...GODs grace.
Those things are all through the Bible.
I feel sorry for you
@@williamgullett8071 James 2:14-26 "we're not justified by faith alone"
Scott Hahn is the reverse Martin Luther.
Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ. By contrast, the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Bible salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their defense. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Membership or faith in a church does not secure salvation for anyone, but trust Christ and Him alone and you will be saved for all eternity!
The final payment for the world's sins was made!
The wages of sin was death, and Christ died that death for our sins, making the way clear for us to be saved. Now after believing that He died for our sins, was buried and has risen, Ephesians 1:13 assures us that we were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. Meaning we never have to worry about our salvation again.
You have tried all the gimmicks. You've jumped through all the hoops. You've gotten fairly good at doing spiritual gymnastics, but have you ever just tried resting? Resting in Christ and His finished work?
Regardless of what the evangelicals and denominational churches tell us, the gospel is not repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)
It is not keeping the commandments and selling all your possessions (Matthew 19:16-21.)
It is not he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 24:13.)
The gospel of your salvation is: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel... By which also ye are saved,... how that Christ died for our sins... he was buried, and that he rose again the third day..."
The word "gospel" means GOOD NEWS. And the good news of how God was "in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" has been overshadowed by the "Gospel Buffet" for far too long!
It's time you ignore the buffet table and rest in this good news.
As ambassadors for Christ, we would also like to refer you to Truth Time Radio, also on CZcams and Facebook, they are happy to help you better understand your Bible and better express your faith to others.
Have a blessed day with insight, wisdom and discernment!
proselyting
“The action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.”
All this did in conclusion was give an argument that all bishops are equal
Scott is truly the best!❤
God Almighty but Scott Hahn is on a par with Pope Benedict on his simplicity, lucidity and tremendous clarity of thought. The insights he shares are truly God-Holy Spirit inspired.
God or Satan?
Does he hide pedos as Benedict did?
Love this exchange between Mr. Bertuzzi and Dr. Hahn. This seems like an excerpt from a larger discussion which I haven't viewed in its entirety. My comment is, I wonder if it would be helpful to address the similarities between and the difference between the Catholic and Protestant theology regarding the sacred Scriptures. I am thinking here of the divine inspiration and inerrancy (similarities) on the one hand, and the 'material sufficiency' (Catholic position) vs. the 'formal sufficiency' (the Protestant position) of sacred Scripture on the other. Jimmy Akin did something on this and it was extremely helpful for me to get at the root of the interperative understandings. Generally and briefly, the 'material sufficiency' of sacred Scripture is the view that the entire 'Deposit of Faith' (the fulness of the truth Jesus Christ entrusted to the Apostles and to the Church) is 'materially present' in the Scriptures, but not in a formulaic or prosaic way as a theological proof text textbook, and also not always in a straightforward statement ("God is a Trinity"), but as a statement that requires the understanding of the history at the time the text was written, the genre of literature that is used, the the social mores and cultural mileiu present at that time, the political situation present at that time in history, and the experience of the interpretive community guided by the Holy Spirit. However, the sacred Scriptures aren't self explanatory and everything within them isn't equally stated in a straightforward manner in the way we would express ourselves in the 20th and 21st centuries in the modern west. The texts were written over a 1,000 yr period by various divinely inspired authors but in such a way that while it was them writing in their style, they inerrantly preserve and express what God would have us know regarding Himself and humanity in relation to Him.
Luv this convert, Scott Hahn...He is a Very Learned Man!!! 😊🙏📿💒📖🕊
I didn't understand, how was the pope anointed/created as a leader?
I really respect all my Christian Protestants folks, because I do believe (and observed during my life) that actually what they are doing is defending their point of view of the faith (I respect that, many Catholics need to learn that) BUT once they learn and understand the history and Theology in depth… and they do understand, they become the best defenders of our faith.
The BEST way to convert someone, it’s not shaming them or just keep having discussions when we are just making a point “to win a discussion”… because “we are right… and they aren’t”… The best way is LEARNING first, every aspect of our faith, in my case for example I was very BAD CATECHIZED… and my parents didn’t follow the real way of our faith either…. and that just resulted in me getting far from our faith and getting doubt’s but never making the time to research and find out for myself… Thankfully I did and now I am convinced.
BUT my point is if we CATHOLICS concentrate to LEARN AND STUDY more and more about our Faith, we can have honest and interesting conversations with our Protestants folks (of course the ones that want to hear) and maybe we can put a little doubt in their heart that will make them to search and look for the truth.
You have the holy Catholic Church. You have 48,000 protestant CULTS. Now please read my other comment. Only Catholic’s are Christian because there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH.
NO CAtholic will EVER be honest about their faith!!!
I have ask 100's of Catholics 18 simple questions and NO ONE can give the two word answer .. All I get are insults. tell me to read that book, or watch whatever video, or "talk to a priest"!!! That IS NOT what I asked. The answers MUST be from the Bible!!!!
Why can't catholics be honest? Why do they REFUSE to defend their faith????
1 Peter 3:15-17
Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance [elicited by faith] that is within you, yet [do it] with gentleness and respect.
SPOKEN BY PETER!!!!
-----#1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special?
#2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special?
#3--Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special?
#4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special?
#5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special?
#6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary prayed to/with beads.
#7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary went to/ will go to heaven.
#8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is an mediator/intercessor.
#9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary remained a virgin all her life.
#10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary did not sin.
#11--Quote the Holy Bible that says a mere man is Head of the church.
#12--Quote the Holy Bible that says there are popes in God's kingdom.
#13--Quote the Holy Bible that says we are to confess our sins to a priest.
#14--Quote the Holy Bible that says there is an "one holy Apolistic church?
#15--Quote the Holy Bible that says the seventh day is not the Sabbath.
#16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters.
#17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Peter was in Rome.
#18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is the Ark of the covenant.
>>>FACT: I have asked OVER 100 supposed experts on Catholicism to reply to those questions.
All I have received are out of context quotes, told to watch this or that video, or no reply at all!!!
Will you answer them???? At least the first 5 basic questions FROM THE BIBLE.
>>>>
btw:
BIBLE PROPHECY ROME DESTROYED
If the Catholic religion iS the one Jesus taught, then why is it called the "Apostate church"? Why will it be destroyed?
www.soonrussiaattacks.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Rome_Destroyed.htm
>>>>
John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
So, when a religion teaches what contradicts what Jesus taught, is that religion the truth????
Protestant’s are NOT Christian
@@mitchellosmer1293you
"By their fruits you shall know them"
Over its entire history, what are the fruits of the Catholic church?
Billions of souls saved….enough said
@@johnyang1420 A similiar defense can be made by the Orthodox Church, heck even by Joel Osteen and similar pastors. Did you know that there close to 500 million protestants that think they are saved?
Love this intro, would add to Dr Hahn’s exposition of the problem that the Disciples didn’t recognize Jesus on the road to Amayas but rather He was revealed to them in the presence of the Eucharist. -Did not our hearts burn in his presence?
What a beautiful explanation by Dr. Scott Hahn. Never heard explained like it before.Even I understood that completely. Thank you.
Irenaeus, 180AD: …that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. (etc.)
It’s worth noting that Irenaeus does not refere to the papacy here, but that the Church of Rome was preeminent among the churches who held to the apostolic tradition, but from Irenaeus’ argument it is plain that it was the Apostolic tradition and not the church itself that was of most importance.
This is recognized by even catholic scholars. Which is why historical development plays such a strong role in the argument for the papacy. Their is no question that an original doctrine can be clarified and extended, but one might wonder about continuity if the starting point is the oak acorn of the teachings of the Apostles, but ends with the fir tree of a single monarch.
A Robert Eno, a Catholic scholar observed the following about this quote:
“All churches must agree with it [the Roman church] on matters of doctrine because they must agree with the apostolic tradition preserved by the apostolic churches….In any event this is a striking testimony though not, in my view, as decisive as some have argued. The context of Irenaeus’ argument does not claim that the Roman Church is literally unique, the one and only in its class; rather, he argues that the Roman church is the outstanding example of its class, the class in question being apostolic sees. While he chose to speak primarily of Rome for brevity’s sake, in fact, before finishing, he also referred to Ephesus and Smyrna…..” Robert Eno, The Rise Of The Papacy (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990), p. 39-40.
Mic Drop! Very helpful info! Thank you!
WOW. What an explanation! I do believe we should have the love of understanding the Scripture as strong as our Protestant brothers combined with understanding the Tradition! Because if we don't, we won't have a deeper understanding with our faith.
Quite agree! The Reformed Protestant Biblical scholars have always spoken with this kind depth.
This Dr. Scott Hahn guy knows his stuff. He is going places 😁
Dr. Scott Hahn guy knows his stuff. He is going places
well he knows what the RCC teaches and is willing to compromise his beliefs to be in the RCC. Most of the doctrines of the RCC are correct but there are SOME satanically inspired doctrines that do not belong in any church. Until Scott wakes up and sees the satanically inspired doctrines he will continue to spread another Jesus / false gospel to so many Catholics who do not read Gods word for themselves. 2 Peter 1:20,21
Satan knows his stuff also.
@@sammygomes7381 - wow.... you truly have no measurement in your speech if what you are saying is what I think you are saying; your comment then requires serious clarification, and I say this in the love of Christ and with great sorrow for you.
@@NothosXXI If there is a part you didn't understand let me know and I except it in the love of Christ.
@@sammygomes7381, can you clarify what you intend to say with the comment "satan knows his stuff also" concerning Dr. Hahn or us Catholics?
Although assuming I may be foolish, I believe your words need clarification.
Are you accusing Dr. Hahn of satanic or something like that because he repented from the heretical position of Protestantism?
That was awesome!! Thank you!!
Viva Cristo Rey!!
Love and respect Dr. Scott Hahn🙏🏼✝️🙏🏼
The leap from "And the gates of hell will not prevail against it" to papal infallibility is greater than leaping from the earth to the moon.
This didn't age well for Cameron... Welcome home Mr. Bertuzzi
Listening to Dr. Hahn makes me realize how dumb I am. What a brilliant mind. The Church is blessed to have such an advocate.
@@eireannemerald1382 Why do people REFUSE to answer my questions?? I have asked these questions 100's of times , especially of Catholics, and NOT one can or will reply.
#1--What numerical day of the week did GOD REST on?
#2--What numerical day of the week did GOD BLESS?
#3---What numerical day of the week did GOD SANCTIFY?
#4--What numerical day of the week did GOD call "His Holy Day?
#5--What day of the week did GOD give a name to?
#6--What day of the week did Jesus worship on?
#7--What day of the week did the women followers of Jesus keep as a rest day?
#8--What day of the week did the disciples worship on?
***QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD Rested on the FIRST day of the week.
***QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD BLESSED the FIRST day of the week.
****QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST day of the week.
****QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD said the FIRST day of the week is HIS HOLY DAY.
***QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD named the FIRST day of the week.---
@@mitchellosmer1293 People don't like insistence, that's why
quote--- People don't like insistence, that's why--unquote
Who is insisting??? I don't--nor does Christ.
All you have to offer is an opinion.
@@mitchellosmer1293 If you wander around Catholic channels and copy paste these stupid questions, that's it - insistence.
@@czmychal Whatever you say---But, OBVIOUSY questions Catholics REFUSE to answer!!!
PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!!!
QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD Rested on the FIRST day of the week.
***QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD BLESSED the FIRST day of the week.
****QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST day of the week.
****QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD said the FIRST day of the week is HIS HOLY DAY.
***QUOTE--again---QUOTE the EXACT verses that declares that GOD--again--GOD named the FIRST day of the week.---
SINCE YOU CAN NOT, your claim that Sunday, the first day of the week was made holy or special BY GOD totally falls apart.
Amazing to hear so simplified to understand
As a french catholic, thanks for your work! In France, we need more apologetic!
Is the Number of Protestants Converting to Roman Catholicism Growing in USA?
💫Thank you both, such a great dialogue between these two Christian minds... spirits. Thank Lord for the testimony of your living, breathing, thryving church.🙏
Mr Hahn is a blessing to us all!
Our Protestant brother is like come on man It should be simpler than this get to the point faster.
Because the answer is NOPE.
No that was YOU!!
Im proud roman catholik church im watching from pillipines thank you for fight our roman catholik religion.
There are many reasons to question Catholicism as time goes on. More truth keeps coming and many christ followers are becoming smarter and enlightened by the holy Spirit Just because "the early father's" made a determination doesn't mean it's accurate or of God. Man makes mistakes. Science changes every day. I realize as a Catholic you never want to hear you've been doing anything wrong because of your "perfectly organized first church" but believing that is the first problem. The light of knowledge gets brighter towards the end.
We really need to treasure our church history and tradition and put our faith to the Church founded by Jesus Himself.
So uhhh...When is Cameron becoming a Catholic? He's on this show all the frickin time, haha.
Seriously, though, awesome job, Cameron. Keep pursuing Love and Heaven.
The Italian guy is "becoming" catholic? Yeah i'd want more proof he was ever protestant first. Maybe his love of chocolate is what made him say one thing and now he wants back on the home team.
He likes the rock bands and the Welch’s grape juice 🧃 too much
The only way a Catholic pursues heaven is by their DAMNABLE good deeds, by which they ignorantly think they will enter in (CCC 1821). Therefore, you and the Pope, right down to the pauper in the pew are 100% LOST because you have REFUSED to trust in the merits of Christ alone!
I seem to remember Mr. Fradd reporting earlier this year that Mr. Bertuzzi finally accepted the call to convert to Catholicism, but I can’t find any proof of that reportage.
Cameron is on his way home.🙏🏼
As a cradle catholic, wow. I've never had the opportunity to understand this.
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Scott Hahn is outstanding.
No one explains Catholicism Like Scott Hahn and Gus Lloyd. I have learned so much from them.
quote----No one explains Catholicism Like Scott Hahn and Gus Lloyd. I have learned so much from them...unquote
Did you learn that the Sabbath Commandment is in the Catholic Bible????
It is also in the : Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible Challoner Revision.
Did he tell you there is ABSOUTELY NOT one verse in ALL the Bible that tells
of Mary going to heaven???
Did he tell you Mary is NOT a mediator???
Did he tell you that Mary did NOT remain a virgin??
Did he tell you Mary was sinner???
Did he tell you mary NEVER prayed to/used beads???
The explanation given by Scott Hahn is one of the best and clear definition how the Old Testament and New Testament explain the development of the pope and it's succession.
GOD BLESS SCOTT HAHN!! I can listen to him 24 /7🥰Thank you God for Scott Hahn conversion just to DEFEND our Catholic Faith!!
So much to learn and so much to pass on to future generations!!
God Bless you!
Wow blimey, that's maybe the best explanation i've ever heard of the papacy.
Great video. Thank you so much. Dr. Scott Hahn is amazing.
Thank you for proving that the papacy simply never entered into the mind of the early Church and apostles.
Cradle Catholic here but now leaning towards Orthodox Christianity.
Wonderful episode with so much gold nuggets!! Could i ask you my brother if you could have Sam Shamoun on? He is a warrior for Christ and a human encyclopedia when it come to the Holy Bible and the Christian faith. Latly he has been leaning more and more towards Catholicsm and Orthodoxy so it would be wonderful to have him on the show. Becuse the brother has been a warrior for Christ over 20 years now defending the faith and in the process he has lost much if not all for preaching and telling the truth. Please brother have him on!! I can feel it in every bone inside its going to be and epic podcast. Holy Spirit is working in the man!
Fools gold
Love Scott Hahn: never tire of listening & reading his books & testimonials of his conversion to Catholicism; probably one of greatest converts to the Catholic Faith! Love his book: Rome Sweet Home; his "Hail Holy Queen" (tapes) so awesome!🙏🥰
Cameron Bertuzzi is now a Catholic, praise God
If you have to flower up the history to make it sound palatable this is usually a red flag. Seems rather common amongst Catholics to try their best to make something sound like a response that really isn't. I guess you could call it the Aquinas bug as it started with him.
Scott has studied scripture longer than that guy's been alive. I think he knows what he's talking about. I'd love to hear his rebuttal to Mr. Hahn's exclamation on the subject.
Scott Hahn was a new convert when he went to seminary to become a pastor, he had almost no prior theological background.
Was Peter not fallible when he denied Christ? Where does scripture support the infallibility of any man?
That belief in the papacy doesn't hold waters, I mean, there's no a word in the bible supporting this. Sometimes I wonder what flashes across catholics mind to believe in. I was born in catholic bosom, but after reading the bible many things started to make sense, like, the book itself sheds light on the papacy in Revelation chapter 13 and 17. Summing-up, the papacy is the fulfilment of the chapters aforementioned; it has nothing to do with godlike order .
@@mwood3658 when Christ grants a man the power to forgive sins (Matt 16), when a council of the church decides to abrogate the covenant of circumcision and God seemingly approves by spreading it all over the world (Acts 15).
Also to address the deeper misunderstanding in your question, the Pope qua man isn’t infallible anymore than Peter was when he denied Christ. The Pope qua chief minister of the Gospel however, like Peter in his exercise of the earthly binding and loosing his Redeemer commissioned him to or in his and James judgement call at the council of Jerusalem for full gentile inclusion, in that capacity and in that capacity alone is he infallible
@@donysouza449 The papacy is built on two scripture basis of the Primacy of Peter and Apostolic succession.
The man is a freaking legend
Love Mr. Hahn's explanations. Mybrain thinks in black and white and Mr. Hahn comes and paints it all in color
Hi
Where can one get that book, please? "Keys over the christian world". I can´t find it online
I'm sorry....I missed the point. I thought the question was "where in the NT is there a confirmation for the Papacy".
The point is to inflate his belly with hot air and self-conglaturatury nonsense. Straight out of the patterns listed during the Ministry of Christ that he called out the Pharisees for.
I am answering the question from an understanding that all of us here believe the new testament is the inspired protected word of God. There can be no misunderstanding what Jesus Christ meant when He stated directly to Peter “ you are Petros and upon Petros (Peter) I will build my church”. That clear statement (in the NT) should be enough proof, and if the apostles did not believe it, why would they then almost immediately on the death of Peter, elect and name a new “Petros” in Linus, remember that they had the power to bind and loose on earth?
@@josephmclaughlin9404 Respectfully, Mathew 16 states that upon Peters reply, Christ confirms that the cornerstone of the faithful rests upon this singular faith test...Who do you say that I am? . You could say that Peter was the “first believer”; that he was the “first rock” among “many rocks.” Paul, undeniably, was a "rock". But to say that ONLY Peter was the ONLY conduit to the living God, is erroneous. There is no Biblical argument whatsoever that Peter’s privilege or authority was passed on. The idea that apostolic authority comes from Jesus, who gave it to Peter, who set his hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, who in turn set their hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, and so on and so on through the generations until today is nonsense. We are saved by faith, period. Not in religion. Religion has always attempted to supplant the authority of God. And any faith, including my Protestant faith, that attempts to act as a go between is merely man's pride. Our Lord doesn't need an earthly representative that requires lofty titles and homage. He requires that we “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." God is my "rock". I will pray for you brother, as we will all need confirmation of this fact, very soon.
Often clever theologians explain away the main argument using irrelevant analogies instead of dealing straightly with the question. Sometimes a simple and sincere Bible seeker and teacher have better understanding of the Scripture than clever theologians.
@@josephmclaughlin9404 The bible is very clear, the apostles and the prophets were the foundation, Christ is the one and only cornerstone.
Lots of words but no answer to the question. He just admitted that the papacy was not found in Scripture nor was it found in the early church but it took a long time to develop. Basically agreeing with the protestant objection that the papers he doesn’t exist in the early church.
He said it was there like an acorn. The thing I find so disingenuous about protestant objections to the papacy is that many of them claim the church itself failed to exist and had to be restored. That's a whole different kind of nut.
Reminds me of Neil Degrasse Tyson or that Dyson dude that debated Peterson, all word salad. Since the moment he opened his mouth to start talking about himself I was already done.
@@thereaction18 - According to Matthew 16, the Church is the people of faith (those who confesses Peter's faith) - not an organization, which is like the kernel of a corn. The corn is the Church, whereas the organizations (like Catholics and Protestants) is the kernel. Just being used to contain and preserve the Church. But you are right. The Church has existed from Apostolic times until now, and a remnant of it has never went into hiding. "A city of a hill can not be hidden" says Jesus. And so is the Church, the people of faith. In sum, to be Catholic, does not mean you are part of the true Church. It is faith in Christ and His words that determines your status, and you can be a Protestant and have that saving faith. 🙏🏽
@@mtalk828 that's what a protestant would say.
@@---.----- You really think Christ started a church that confiscated people's property and burn people at the stake?
it,s kind of ironic that if diciples were to be made all over the world that it would include millions, if not billions of people, how could you NOT have some type of hieracrhy?
How does “the concept of doctrinal development” (around 2:50) square against the assertion that “this has been the church’s position from the very beginning”? Isn’t that one of the challenges offered by the Protestant objector - that this doctrine evolved over time?
Is an acorn an oak tree in seed form? Everything that the Church believes and teaches is materially present in the sacred Scriptures. It isn't the teaching in the sacred Scriptures that changes, it is the Church's OWN UNDERSTANDING of what is already materially there that grows, deepens, enlarges, and develops over time. An acorn doesn't look like a sapling; a sapling doesn't look like five to ten year old tree; and a five to ten year old tree doesn't look exactly like a mature one hundred year old oak. Nevertheless, EVERYTHING that that one hundred year old, mature oak would become, WAS SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT in the acorn. The oak, like the Church's understanding of the deposit of faith Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church, grew, enlarged, deepened, and developed OVER TIME.
Isn't that what we would expect from something that was DIVINELY REVEALED? God is infinite, all knowing, eternal. We are finite, limited in our understanding, and temporal. Our knowledge as a human race, even in something as merely created and human as mathematics and medicine GROWS OVER TIME, gets passed from one generation to the next, and each builds on what came before while adding things previous generations hadn't even dreamed of. Why would it be any different with something that came from an infinite, omniscient, eternal Being given to finite, limited, sinful human beings? Why WOULDN'T our understanding of the sacred deposit of faith given to us, grow, mature, deepen, and develop over time collectively?
Wow. Scott Hahn connecting Scripture, History, Theology, to give a complete answer on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
If the Catholic Church had no Celibacy, Dr. Hahn would be a priest.
All it took was one asexual priest to rise to the office of pope and make a rule against having sex, exactly what about that has to do with Jesus or the Bible is beyond me but it opened the catholic church up to be infested with guys and pedos
That's what I call on oxymoron. If the Catholic Church had no Celibacy it wouldn't exist.
The church of Satan has priests also, your point?
CHASTITY is a HOLY VIRTUE sadly few men possess...like St Joseph did. It is a GRACE from GOD.
Is this truley the best argument Catholics have for the Pope?
if only it was biblical. Satan had a good argument for Eve to eat of the tree also.
love this...thank you !
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy!
POPE says keep Sunday holy!
“The Bible says remember that thou keep the Sabbath day. The Catholic Church says, 'NO!'. By my divine power, I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And, lo, the entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church." Father Enright, American Sentinal, June 1893.
The WORD teaches 7th day is holy!
The WORLD teaches 1st day is holy!
🤔WHO DO YOU OBEY⁉️
Ex-illuminati speaks on Sunday
👉 czcams.com/video/LzXQwjd6EdI/video.html
⚠️MUST READ!!!
👉 www.anym.org/pdf/National_Sunday_Law.pdf
cudos to cameron for his journey... praying more open protestants come home