Biblical PROOF of the Papacy w/ Dr. Scott Hahn and Cameron Bertuzzi

This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Dr. Scott Hahn and Cameron Bertuzzi. Watch the full interview here: • Conversion to Catholic...
In this clip, Dr. Hahn gives proof that the Papacy was indeed in the Bible.
===
📚 My new book: www.amazon.com/How-Be-Happy-T...
🔴 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

[@garymallaley4797]

Dr. Scott Hahn opens the scriptures better than anyone I have ever heard. He is the best apologist I personally know. Thank you, Dr. Hahn.

[@garymallaley4797]

I am not sure I agree with Carmen's Bayesian analysis is a valid approach for looking for "the Good, the True, ND the Beautiful" which are the transcendent values leading to us understanding Christ's perfect plan for his Church.

[@bradbrown2168]

Reading the AnteNicene fathers, papacy is not there.

[@bryanforeman4144]

@@bradbrown2168 Is the book you are referring titled "Ante-Nicene Fathers" that was first published in late 1800s

[@elizabethmabry8061]

Dr. Hahn always opens my eyes to some noteworthy point of detail that I didn’t previously understand. Thanks for posting this highlight video.

[@whatWJDo]

Lol ironically Dr. Hahn is not allowed to be a priest.... he brings benefits to Catholicism by occupying a pastoral role type which arose only in a protestant context.

[@SAshlock]

Mr. Hahn is such a treasure.

[@brendamyc3057]

Finally!!! Thanks Scott. Saint Peter is the first Pope. His life and ministry provide how to walk in this vocation doing the Will of the Father through Jesus, in the Holy Spirit!

[@radiofacevoiceoverer839]

Not trying to be snarky or smart aleck, but does a specific word study reveal that Peter was given the mantle, or title, or created that title himself, for the position he held as the first "earthly / organized church leader" Are there any biblical (or extra biblical) texts where Peter can be noted referring specifically to this lofty title and the governmental like governance that inherently came along with much power, decision, and leadership tasked 2 one mortal man.... Up pops this little scenario in my mind. "Hey peter! I heard the Great news! You're the pope! I am? What's a Pope?

[@southernlady1109]

@@radiofacevoiceoverer839 Jn:142, Mt16:18-19

[@pattyserrano9339]

Always a pleasure to hear dr Scott Hahn👏🏼

[@paulyoshida1747]

So, according to Dr. Scott Hahn, "if Judas's office is vacant, and it cries out for a successor, how much more with the others..." So, we have each of the apostles "seats" being replaced each time one dies? We have a seat of Peter, a seat of Andrew, a seat of James, etc? What happened to each of these seats? If this is an argument for the seat of Peter as the papacy, then logically the other "lesser apostles" seats must also have continued to this day? Where is the unbroken line of succession for John, Thomas, and Matthew? And what are these "seats" called? Dr. Scott Han has a nice voice, and he seems well versed in the OT, but he takes some strange interpretational leaps. He has a way of making something sound "beautiful," which is perhaps a gift, but if you actually look into what he's saying, his Biblical interpretations don't follow sound exegetical principles. Of course, this does not matter to a Roman Catholic. It makes every difference when discussing with a non-Roman Catholic Christian, because we cannot agree on the methodology of Biblical interpretation. Every time I've tried to have this discussion with a Roman Catholic, they just say: "that's your personal interpretation," as if without Rome, the Bible could be made to say absolutely anything, when it appears obvious that, taking this video as an example, chief among the people who are making the Bible say whatever is convenient to them are Roman Catholics.

[@tomcha75]

Some good points. I'm no historian or theologian so take my points with a healthy level of skepticism. 1. Other seats: All the Apostles passed down their roles to others via laying on hands. Peter was unique in that he was the leader of the Apostles. Hence, there could only be one and singled out necessarily so. You can take literally any bishop in the CC and trace their roots to one of the original Apostles, but there was no need to single out for their offices because theirs weren't meant to have just one person fill the role. 2. Biblical interpretation: It is true that many Catholics hold the view that personal interpretations, while they can be helpful for personal reflection, prayers, meditation, and contemplation, is necessarily wrong if it does not fall within the boundaries of the official CC's interpretation. This is so because Christ didn't give a set of books to his Apostles. He founded a Church based on Tradition. And the Church debated and bound the canon that we call the Bible - all based on the authority of the Tradition. This may explain it a bit better: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3K8aqiwm7WCeJYsi=cibQCIZySNXzLb2C (3 min) We are told at the end of John that not all things could be written down. Jesus formed the Apostles for 3 years. They would have heard and seen things they took one way based on their Jewish tradition. Some of those would have been correct and some would have been wrong requiring further explanation and correction from Our Lord. So when issues and questions arose, and when it came time to consolidate the growing number of faithful and decide what books and letters were inspired and should be included in the canon, it was the authority of the Church given by Christ the Early Church Fathers relied on. Hence, it doesn't make sense to take the Bible in isolation and essentially out of context. That's how when taken out context the Bible "could be made to say absolutely anything" as exemplified by the 40,000+ Protestant denominations. 3. "Bible say whatever is convenient to them are Roman Catholics" This is accusing the CC of what the Protestant did/do. The Catholic Church does not take the Bible in a vacuum and out of context to interpret it to suit whoever is in charge. Rather, it compares the Scriptures and Tradition against each other (see the above video). This is one of the reasons why Sola Scriptura does not hold water.

[@paulyoshida1747]

@@tomcha75 Per point 3: the main problem there is that what the modern CC calls "tradition" is not consistent. It also isn't clear to anyone who wishes to look up a comprehensive list of said "tradition." The only clear thing to the modern CC is that of authority. Except, to take one example, the definition of something so vital as infallibility, which has been conveniently redefined over the years. The honest historical evidence shows that it is an accrued or developed doctrine. Catholics will try to argue against this, but it's always cherry picking patristic writings and reading developed doctrines back into them. There is no historically consistent way to interpret scriptures in light of this said "tradition," which has changed over the years. And, the catholic church has tried to bludgeon people over the head with their "authoritative" interpretations over the centuries, which is why protestantism emerged. The protestants and proto protestants tried to point out the egregious and widespread corrupt practices in the catholic church, sighting how it went against Scriptures, but were shut down repeatedly, via the church's said "authority." In order to restore the church, the protestants said that the church's arbitrary, "because I said so," approach needed to be checked against God's word. Protestant exegetical tradition does not promote arbitrary interpretation. One cannot make the Bible say whatever they want to, and if they do, they are wrong. Human corruption is inevitable. Laypeople can hold their leaders accountable against Scriptures in protestant churches, because God's word has the highest authority. The CC approach does not allow for laypersons to hold their leaders accountable within the church, which has lead to widespread abuse of their authority. In modern times, it's the civil government which has held the CC accountable. This modern CC apologetical talking point misses the mark completely from a historical standpoint.

[@FourEyedFrenchman]

I repeatedly see people saying the primacy of St. Peter is undeniable, but that primacy doesn't extend to his successors. Why? By that logic, apostolic authority died with the 12, and you concede that Joseph Smith and the Mormons were right about their whole idea of the "Great Apostasy". When Christ handed the keys to Peter, he didn't say "here are the keys to heaven, be sure and take them to your grave."

[@gaseredtune5284]

We deny that the city of rome is what carries on the apostles authority and that city remains in authority over other cities. Vatican 1 and 2 are not correct, they are heresy.

[@BornAgainRN]

If replacing Judas is evidence for Peter’s primacy, then why wasn’t James replaced in Acts chapter 12 after he was executed? And if Peter being mentioned first is another example, then why does Paul list James above Peter in Galatians as one of the three pillars of the church? And what about other times when Peter is not listed first, such as when Andrew is mentioned before Peter (John 1:44)?

[@humphreyobanor866]

What is the meaning of the name Peter?

[@theandybee3050]

@@humphreyobanor866 we all know petros but that doesn’t answer any of the questions posed by BornAgainRN. This is called a red herring

[@paulhill7726]

Wouldn’t that be assuming James wasn’t replaced? I don’t think Acts is an exhaustive account of everything the Apostles did. Concerning Galatians, Peter was already mentioned first and separately twice in Galatians 2:7-8 prior to the list in verse 9. As regards John 1:44 wouldn’t that moreso coincide with the fact that Andrew came to JESUS first before Peter? Its interesting to note that Andrew keeps getting referred to as Simon Peter’s brother John 1:40; 6:8

[@m_d1905]

@@humphreyobanor866 Cephas or "rock". It had more to do with his hard-headedness. The nick name at any rate. James was as big a leader, if not a bigger leader. There isn't much to proof that Peter went to Rome. He stayed in Jerusalem.

[@humphreyobanor866]

@@m_d1905 your heart is telling you the truth. 'upon this rock, I will build my Church'. Check out Dr. Pitre Brant on KZbin for a thorough explanation. You will be amazed.

[@andreasmandl9744]

Scott Hahn…he is for me a real „neo church father“ …!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🤩

[@triggered8556]

Where do we go from Acts 1, all the way to Vatican I canon? Wouldn't Acts 15 contradict Vatican I canon when Paul corrects Peter?

[@triggered8556]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my don’t speak that way about St Paul.

[@gabrielparent]

Orthodox Christians often say to me that while they do not deny Peter's authority, as we see it in Scripture, they still deny it to his successors. Any clues on that topic?

[@southernlady1109]

Of course, Jesus gave the same authority and power to Peter’s successors, as Peter was not going to live until Jesus returns. Who would have the office of leader of Gods Church since He went to take His place at the right hand of our Father. Jn1:42, Mt 16:18-19, 1 Cor 12:28, Acts 20:28, 1 Pet 2:6-9, Lk 22;28-32

[@bradbrown2168]

With this line logic, Peter should have gave the final decision at the Jerusalem Council. Peter makes no comment on his supremacy in his authoritative epistles.

[@poesia-com-cafeina]

Okay but there is nowhere in the Bible where Jesus says specifically "I am God" but we draw these things together

[@bradbrown2168]

@@poesia-com-cafeina Why was Jesus condemned by Caiaphas? Jesus remarked about One like a son of man sitting at the right hand of God.

[@bradbrown2168]

@@poesia-com-cafeina False. He was convicted of Blasphemy saying he was the one at the right hand of the Father. Daniel prophecy. He said before Abraham was. I am. Weak arguments.

[@levrai944]

@@bradbrown2168yes but did He explicitly say that He is God, do you find those specific words in the text? No you don’t. But anyone with a brain can draw that conclusion that Jesus is God. That’s the point.

[@philoalethia]

We have the same problem here that RC apologists rightly note about Protestant-Evangelical arguments regarding sola scriptura. Let us start there. P-E apologists will assert, usually based on II Timothy 3:16 and related, that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible constitute the exclusive rule for Christian faith and doctrine. The problem, of course, is that the passage does actually say that. The words just are not there. Rather, what is happening is that the proponent is confusing a compatibility between the passage and sola scriptura with the passage actually teaching sola scriptura (which it does not). However, let us assume that the passage could rightly be interpreted as teaching sola scriptura. If so, we must then ask to which books was the author referring? The Christian Bible didn't exist at the time. If it referred to any collection of writings, it would most likely have been the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament) and almost certainly the Septuagint version thereof, which contained books generally not found in P-E Bibles. No P-E Christian holds that the Septuagint alone is the Word of God. For this and other rather obvious reasons, the sola scriptura argument simply doesn't work. The person who makes such an argument, even if innocently, is making an invalid, unsound argument. It not only doesn't support his position, but positively undermines it if taken as claimed. The "biblical" arguments for Papal Supremacy have similar problems. Specifically, the conclusion again doesn't follow from the premises. Despite the consistent efforts of RC apologists to read contemporary Papal Supremacy back into Scripture and history, it doesn't follow from the cherry-picked, reframed statements here that Peter (alone) has Succession, Infallibility, and Supremacy. Compatibility isn't correspondence. On the other hand, if we assume that he does on the basis of the arguments provided, then the same would be held for ALL of the apostles and not just Peter. Either way, the Roman Catholic position regarding Peter and contemporary Papal claims simply does not hold. Hahn--who I genuinely like very much (and who was instrumental in my own conversion to Roman Catholicism almost 30 years ago)--softened the claim by repeatedly mentioning a collegiality among the apostles--a primacy rather than supremacy for Peter. However, that is not what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches regarding the office of the Bishop of Rome in Vatican I.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

The core argument for the papacy is the handing over of the keys to Peter. That's a reference to the role of the steward which is mentioned in the Old Testament and was extremely well understood in first century Judea. That's an argument by correspondence. The argument presented here is instead by compatibility, I agree, and it serves to strengthen the case for this interpretation of the metaphor, the case is better supported than sola scriptura. Besides that, we don't claim sola scriptura, so even if someone were to be left unconvinced by the argument by correspondance, we have the strong case that tradition teaches papacy, and our proposal is that scripture is not the sole source of knowlege about matters of Faith. And yeah, if you look at Acts alone you can infer a mere primacy of Peter over the others, but if you take the proposal that Peter is the steward of the Church, it would make sense that Acts had no reason to report situations where he would have needed to appeal to his superiority if no such situation actually popped up in Peter's life.

[@kelechukwuanozyk7605]

In the same Timothy, Paul emphatically said that the Church is the pillar of truth! Yes, Paul encouraged Timothy to take the scripture seriously, but he didn't say ONLY the scripture. The problem with Protestants is that they worship the Bible, they don't worship Jesus

[@philoalethia]

@@tafazzi-on-discord, you raise the common objection. However, if "the core argument is the handing over of the keys to Peter," then you really have a similar problem. 1) It was the general consensus of the historical theologians that ALL of the apostles received the keys (I grant that we can cherry pick other opinions). 2) There is nowhere in Scripture where it is claimed that ONLY Peter received the keys. You are injecting that concept in order to support your conclusion. Further, the activities generally associated with the keys are expressly given to all of the apostles/disciples in other passages. 3) Even the Roman Catholic Church admits this in its "infallible" council of Lateran II that ALL of the apostles received the keys. [EDIT: "Lateran II" should have been "Lateran IV"] When I say you "have a similar problem," I mean that, if your claim is true, then the Roman Catholic Church has erred in an "ecumenical" council -- something it claims is impossible. But if your claim is in error, then (obviously) the Papal Supremacy claims basically fall apart. Either way, it is a tough circumstance for the RC apologist attempting to push Papal Supremacy: abandon claims of conciliar infallibility or abandon Papal Supremacy. We need not engage your final paragraph, as it is just an argument from silence.

[@philoalethia]

@@kelechukwuanozyk7605 , I think that your claim regarding Protestants is both false and unnecessarily so. I've known many Protestants whose devotion to Jesus is beautiful and admirable. Further, a very similar claim could be made regarding some Roman Catholics, and perhaps with more accuracy: "They don't worship Jesus. They worship the Pope (or Mary)." Perhaps it would be best to first pluck the logs from our own eyes....

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@philoalethia No, I'm not claiming any error in ecumenical councils, I doubt that what you claim is exact, I'll look it up.

[@minasoliman]

This is proof for Primacy of Peter, not of Rome.

[@jerome8950]

So if the Pope officially moved from Rome to a different location, would you still submit to his authority as a successor of Peter?

[@minasoliman]

@@jerome8950 I already submit to the successor of Peter in Alexandria.

[@zhihanlim3500]

Are you Coptic?

[@minasoliman]

@@zhihanlim3500 yes

[@albertusr6178]

​@@minasolimanbut Peter only establish see of Antioch and Rome?

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

Did Catholics do a find and replace on the New Testament to find the word "Peter" and replace it with "the Bishop of Rome"?

[@michaelpuno4319]

I really Love Dr. Scott Hahn

[@barelyprotestant5365]

This doesn't prove the papacy. At most this proves the hardly controversial idea of the primacy of St Peter. Papal Primacy is not the same as Vatican I. It's not even close to Vatican I. In fact, Vatican I would declare the "in a collegial way" mentality (Conciliarism) to be heresy. It's interesting how those defending the Papacy almost always present it as Conciliarism rather than what it really is: the Papacy Alone.

[@johnyang1420]

How do you know that?

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@johnyang1420 Books.

[@MaryAnn_Pimentel]

Nobody would read the Bible and think that off the bat 🤨 unless you forge it into scripture

[@domanicvaldez]

Forge..? No, learn biblical exegesis, yes.

[@theeasternjourney]

In Acts Peter and John were sent by the apostles, he was the first but not supreme. Other apostles were also active, and of course nobody is denying that he was the leader/head.

[@summacontragentiles]

" Nature has not given ( us ) two suns , but ( she has given us ) twin Romes , beacons for the whole world , power both old and new , differing one from another inasmuch as one outclasses the East in splendor , the other the West , mutually holding up beauty to beauty . But as for the faith of these , the one [ i.e. old Rome ] has coursed straight for a longer time and still does now , binding together all the West with her saving words , as it is right that she is the president [ лрóвSpov ] over all , venerating the divine harmony ( of the faith ) in its entirety . " -St . Gregory Nazianzen , Carmen De Vita Sua , AD 382 , Page 37 : 1068 лроεSроv ( proedron ) is the accusative form of the noun πpóɛSpoç ( proedros ) which means president лроε8рос ( proеdros ) is cognate with лроɛSpíа , which means presidency , a term that has also been used for the office of popes • πрóεSpоç ( president ) - one who is seated in the first place

[@summacontragentiles]

More for you 👉 In all of the Gospels Peter is introduced as the first among them with Judas being the last (the order between them varies). And we know that he wasn’t the ‘first called’ [ Mathew 10:2 ] When the 12 apostles are introduced, Simon is introduced as ‘the first’ (also meaning chief in Greek) where as others are not numbered. ([Mark 3:16 ]; [ Luke 16:14 ]) [ Matthew 7:24 ] At the sermon on the mount Jesus tells the people “Therefore anyone who hears these words of mine and puts them in to practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” { Jesus being a wiseman later chooses to build his house on the rock whom he made - he made peter to be the rock ) [ Matthew 16:18 ] Jesus says to Simon that he is the Kepa / Petra and that he will build his Church on him & that the gates of hell will not be prevalent against it [ Matthew 16:19 ] Jesus says to Peter that he will give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that what ever he binds on the earth shall be bound in the heaven and what ever he loosens on earth shall be loosened in the heaven ([ Mathew 18:18 ] he tells the disciples of binding and loosening on earth) ( [ Revelations 3:7 , Revelations 1: 17-18] Jesus Christ is the ultimate holder of this key. St Peter and his predecessors hold the key in Christ) [ Mark 16:7 ] Even the angel (post resurrection ) uses the same wording “Go and tell his disciples and Peter” [ Luke 22:29-32 ] Jesus says he is assigning the kingdom to them and then talks to Simon Peter that Satan tried to make them like wheat in the wind and that he prayed for him that he stays strong and that he should empower his brethren [ John 1:42 ] Jesus looked at him and said “You are Simon, son of Jonas. You will be called Cephas” [ John 10:16 ] Thus there shall be one flock and one shepherd (I am the Good shepherd [ John 10:11 ] ) [ John 17:21 ] That they may be one [ John 17:22 ] That they may be one even as we are one

[@theeasternjourney]

@@summacontragentiles Nobody is arguing against Peter being the first, but we are arguing that Peter did not and never had authority over the other apostles and bishop of Rome never had authority over other jurisdictions, or that is to say over Pentarchy

[@michealcorleone768]

@@theeasternjourney so acc you. Peter is first is leader. But he dosent have any power or authority over others. Dosent make any sense. Why have power if you can't use it. This is bs created by manipulators for the sole purpose of sntiching power. The first among equals dosent work apparently, you see this everywhere in eo and oo churches. You will crash the car if 2 drivers are driving it. Also all the apostles where not given the "key" . Only Peter. Also , Peter has clear primacy even though he was refuted by Paul many times. Paul was clearly a better intellectual than Peter. But the primacy of Peter was always respected and his word was final in the Gospels.

[@theeasternjourney]

​@@michealcorleone768 If keys = binding and loosing then apostles received it as well in Matthew 18:18. I don't know what you're trying to say with the power thing because you've wrote that, according to me, he doesn't have power but he has it and can't use it. Care to explain? I never said that. What I did say is that they all had equal powers, every single church father says that. Peter is the first to receive this promise of power because he is the first who confessed the faith of who Christ is. They all received equal power at the Pentecost. Regarding primacy of honour, it was given to Rome because of Peter and Paul and canonical privileges. "[Pentarchy, that is] -- he who occupies the throne of Rome and is the first; the one who sits upon the throne of Constantinople and is the second; after them, those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That is the Pentarchic authority in the Church. It is to them that all decision belongs in divine dogmas. The Emperor and the secular authority have the duty to aid them and to confirm what they have decided.” `Saint Theodore the Studite, Epistle 2.129 (PG 99: 1417)` "One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples." `Saint Cyril of Alexandria Third Epistle to Nestorius` J.D.Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, p407 notes "The crucial question, however, is whether or not this undoubted primacy of honour was held to exist by divine right and so to involve an over-riding jurisdiction. So far as the East is concerned, the answer must be, by and large, in the negative. While showing it immense deference and setting great store by its pronouncements, the Eastern churches never treated Rome as the constitutional centre and head of the Church, much less as an infallible oracle of faith and morals, and on occasion had not the least compunction about resisting its express will."

[@gailwedgeworth9821]

Absolutely amazing and astute, great analysis.

[@thomaskt991]

Really authentic and encouraging video.

[@florida8953]

How is this proof lol

[@CranmanPhotoCinema]

This is not "proof" for the Papacy, since the Papacy entails 3 necessary components: an ongoing office of Primacy, Infallibility, and Succession. It would only be proof this data was exclusive to the Papacy. But it's not. It's ALSO evidence for what scholars describe Peter as being, "First Among Equals". With this idea, we see Peter having a unique initial role in the Church, including being the rock. But this role is of limited duration, with all of Peters powers being given to the other Apostles as well, including the keys. Key scholars like Rucker, Blomberg, France, Carson, and Allison all affirm this doctrine. Once again, the pattern here is to take the minimal level of data and extrapolate it beyond what is warranted.

[@michealcorleone768]

so acc you. Peter is first is leader. But he dosent have any power or authority over others. Dosent make any sense. Why have power if you can't use it. This is bs created by manipulators for the sole purpose of sntiching power. The first among equals dosent work apparently, you see this everywhere in eo and oo churches. You will crash the car if 2 drivers are driving it. Also all the apostles where not given the "key" . Only Peter. Also , Peter has clear primacy even though he was refuted by Paul many times. Paul was clearly a better intellectual than Peter. But the primacy of Peter was always respected and his word was final in the Gospels.

[@dave1370]

What a very convoluted extrapolation. One would think that something so pivotal to the faith would be a little more clearly laid out.

[@jamesbishop3091]

This is my issue… if acknowledging the papacy is a salvation issue (as would be argued by Roman Catholics), why wouldn’t this be clearly demonstrated in scripture?

[@milliedeevers7009]

Thank you, it was very informative

[@MikeyJMJ]

2:03 Better out than in, as they say

[@uncreatedlogos]

The connection between Peter Rome is missing. Peter had many successors. Not only in Rome but in Antioch and in other places.

[@shawngoldman3762]

Dr. Hahn has a God given ability to see into the depths of Scripture. While these are valid points on the leadership of Peter in the very early church they do not form the foundations of Papal supremacy or infalibility, or even the foundations of the Roman papacy itself. All decisions of the early church in Acts are concillar: choosing a replacement for Judas, how to treat new members of the church, etc. Peter is not even the head bishop of the fledgling church of Jerusalem- James is. If Peter truly is the head of the church, why does James outrank him? Furthermore, if Peter is the founder of the church of Rome, why doesnt Scripture mention this. Scripture puts St. Peter in Antioch, but never in Rome. St. Paul, at the end of his life (2 Timothy) says he "is alone in Rome but for Luke". If St. Peter is the Pope of Rome why didnt St. Paul mention him? And St. Peter himself says he is in Babylon (Aramaic speaking Jewish community). Roman Catholics are constantly placing their pope and church above the rest of Christendom, but unable to provide a solid foundation for this supremacy.

[@Jay-bp1yx]

Little bit of a time commitment, but you may find this explanation of the early church interesting: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bquopGpoqKZpn6c&feature=share They give a far more in-depth explanation than what you’ll find in the comments

[@alyssajeanlewis4128]

I suggest listening to this talk as well. The Pope is hard to explain in a 5 minute video. 😉kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJKsc2CphKd3gc0

[@FCtheRock211]

God bless you Dr Scott Hanh

[@JesusChristKing]

“And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” - Acts 10:25-26 “Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you. If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God: But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.” - 1 Samuel 12:13-15

[@justinitsthatguyme010]

And of course Peter and the keys is a huge hint too

[@joshuascott5814]

But why should I assume that any other Apostle needs a successor when their vacancy was merely due to death rather than being an apostate traitor? The two cases are not so obviously analogous as all that.

[@EricN571]

Cameron became Catholic, he gets it he’s smart .

[@EricN571]

@@drjanitor3747 He said it himself

[@miguelnunorc6570]

However, some evangelical chuches consider that tudo primacy of Peter was pnly vivem by Christ to Peter and therefore no more Lopes are allowed besides St. Peter. What souls se answer to that?

[@stephenbrown7924]

Were any of these points or arguments for the papacy promoted by the early church? Any church fathers?

[@ethanw6767]

Outside of St. Peter there are these events I know of: Pope Xystus II in 264 is consulted before ecumenical teachings and an excommunication of a bishop are affirmed. In the council of Chalcedon in 451, the Legates of the Pope (Bishop of Rome) presided over the council. There are a few others but I'm at work and don't have that much time.

[@Justas399]

Keep in mind that at the 1st church council it was James (Acts 15:19) who makes the decision for the church. Not Peter. Peter never claims to be the chief shepherd of the church nor do any of the apostles acknowledge him as such.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

They did. There aren't very many occasions in the New Testament where they'd need to declare it outright. And the role of Peter woild be similar to the role of the Pope, he wouln't have to make every single decision of the church, he has the highest authorithy but the published articles of councils are mostly proposed by bishops. The Pope doesn't need to appeal to his aithorithy when there's no need to...

[@Justas399]

@@tafazzi-on-discord but a pope would acknowledge he is a pope and so would bishops and all those who believe he is a pope. Peter gave no claim to be the chief shepherd of the church nor did any apostle acknowledge him as such. You are trying to read back into Scripture ideas and doctrines that are not there.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@Justas399 They did recognize Peter's primacy otherwise the Gospels wouldn't all paint him universally as the leader and spokesman of the Apostles. There's no declaration of primacy from Peter or subserviance from the Apostles in the Bible, but we shouldn't expect it to be there. The title "pope" is a shorthand for Heir of Peter. "Peter" IS the title you're talking about, if someone called him "Simon" that would have been a way to reject his primacy. You can't see the trees through the forest can you? All over the New Testament Simon is called Peter because Jesus gave him that TITLE! We don't call the currect bishop of Rome "Peter" because it'd be confusing and also no pope would claim to be as great as Peter. Your arguments are bad and you are reading the Bible wrong.

[@Justas399]

@@tafazzi-on-discord 1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar. 5- Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[@ivanspaziano1977]

James takes a position for enjoying both sides, not a decisions at all in that Council

[@eamonnmcmanus4785]

Good video

[@erojerisiz1571]

2:03 what's that

[@LordCristianWaters]

Let me add to this great presentation, Revelation chapter 18 is proof of the Catholic Christian Emperor (along with Dictatus Papae of 1075 A.D.).

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

Peter was wrong to draw lots….to use the Pharisees, the brood of vipers as your example proves that Catholics are the new Pharisees…. This dude just said it… Christ choose Paul to replace Judas…..

[@sulongenjop7436]

The catholics start calling their elders/holy servants as fathers/papal. Jesus started calling God as father so we the followers of Jesus must do the same too!

[@giovannigennaro9732]

Wise, very wise.

[@ExpiditionWild]

Apologists are just company men. They aren’t interested in truth just defending Catholicism™️. Beholden to the Almighty Dollar and filtering all things through their sieve.

[@lela4975]

If you read from the first verse of Psalm 109 you see that it is not related to what youre saying

[@DanielCarnes]

@2:02 Someone farts.

[@Dirty-D]

I’m sorry, but that did not answer it in anyway. there’s absolutely nowhere biblically that states anything about a pope. You just said reasons of him being a leader that’s it. Jesus did not ordain him as a pope.

[@poesia-com-cafeina]

What he was basically outlining was two things: proof that Peter was the leader and proof that the apostles positions are meant to be replaced upon death. If Peter is the leader and his position is to be replaced upon death, then it would be replaced with another leader, and that leader with another leader and so on and then you have the papacy

[@Stardust475]

I saw a FB post one the egregious things pope after pope was doing. Was appalled.

[@kelechukwuanozyk7605]

That is the way they discourage you to lose your faith, because you are gullible. Why don't they tell you the good things the Popes do? Without the Pope, there is no Christianity. Do not allow them to deceive! Hold on to the Catholic faith

[@Stardust475]

@@kelechukwuanozyk7605 God didn't ask of us to forgo our senses reason, intellect and come to understanding by other means. Being Christian is clear. Astounding claims your making. The Catholic church is corrupt and has killed Christians mercilessly over creed. That's enough proof of how unChristian they have been. Nothing Godly about a man made institution. Yes there are individuals within it of piety and virtuous.

[@johnyang1420]

Popes personal sins are irrelevant.

[@Stardust475]

@@johnyang1420 from your perspective. Also this organization has had systemic abuses perpetrated against children and young women exposed. Another aspect of its egregious lack of holiness Claiming its sanctioned from the Bible is also just that interpretation.

[@EJ-gx9hl]

@@Stardust475 these acts are found all across the board in various professions and organizations. The acts mentioned regarding the Catholic Church are actually a minuscule percentage compared to other secular and religious organizations

[@bigpoppapump8014]

Fart at 2:03

[@OpieApproved]

Infallible men like Peter, Paul and John? That’s not true! Scripture will prove it. Galatians 2:11 when Paul strongly corrected Peter’s mistake. To say something needed to evolve over time for some truths to be discovered is to say the apostles and the over seventy disciples entrusted with the evangelization and ministry of the new covenant failed. And if more was needed then Paul was wrong to teach the church not to go beyond what they had written and taught the churches in 1 Corinthians 4:6.

[@aGoyforJesus]

This is the weakest eisegesis I’ve heard in a long time. Hahn does a good job ignoring the replacement had to have heard Jesus among them. On top of all the later historical problems. Don’t get me started on the collegiality part.

[@alyssajeanlewis4128]

Maybe take a listen to this talk. Sometimes it’s the approach that doesn’t make sense kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJKsc2CphKd3gc0

[@asintonic]

The Brothers Dimond have done great.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

They reject the Catholic Church.

[@mathewcatherine8172]

The diamond brothers easily have the best videos on the papacy, Mary, faith alone, etc.

[@francissweeney7318]

The great error of the catholic church is it's reliance upon itself to interpret The Word of God. Isaiah 55:8 My thoughts are not your thoughts and My words are not your words" they chose to ignore. Jesus also told them " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." They do not even see that Jesus is God in their blindness. Jesus did not say the Father's words, because He is the one with " All power in heaven and in earth " Matthew 28:18. The catholic church represents the Scribes and Pharisees today.

[@mrmikeryan1]

Is Cameron Bertuzzi a Catholic yet? Come on Cameron, that percentage total should be there :)

[@zhihanlim3500]

Not yet

[@michealcorleone768]

Well he is a catholic now. He just converted recently 🎉🎉

[@elperinasoswa6772]

mic dropped 😅

[@cman1072]

This is not proof of the papacy. This is supportive evidence, which can only support a proof. I don't think a proof text in the Bible exists for the papacy.

[@cman1072]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my correct.

[@theandybee3050]

Let’s hope Cameron has discernment enough to see how clearly this rationale is such a terribly weak case for the papacy. A strong case doesn’t exist.

[@theandybee3050]

Nothing about Peter’s leadership in the New Testament leads us to conclude that a permanent “head of church” entitled “father” was established. It’s a very, very long and winding road from the New Testament to the papacy full of canyon-sized logical jumps.

[@illyrian9976]

There is better argument for a papal supremacy than any protestant position.

[@johnsposato5632]

"Thou art Peter (which means "rock"), and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Also, the New Testament is replete with evidence that Peter is looked to by the disciples as having primacy among them. One really striking example is John deferring to Peter before entering the Tomb after the Resurrection. There are many others. And then there's this: The Church named a successor to Peter after his death. Pope Linus, believed to be the same Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. So, if the Church was wrong in naming a successor to St. Peter as leader of the Church, it ran off the rails really quickly. Then what of Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it?

[@theandybee3050]

How does Christ saying that he would use Peter to be a building block for the founding of the church teach a permanent office? How do any of the evidences in the New Testament teach a permanent office? Why wouldn’t Christ have given more specific direction on this if He had a permanent office in mind? Paul wasn’t recognizing Peter’s primacy when he withstood him to the face and pointed out his error. Christ said to call no man father. To replace Peter is neither instructed in the Old or New Testament, nor does it necessitate a permanent office. To get from any of your statements to a papal conclusion takes a big logical jump.

[@theandybee3050]

@@user-wg5dm6oc3t ok, but I wouldn’t call that a strong case or good hermeneutics

[@fabiotuan5206]

Catholic theology leads to confusion and bondage for many! God bless the reformation

[@jerome8950]

It is not anyone's fault that you are confused by Catholic theology. You are solely to blame

[@fabiotuan5206]

@@jerome8950 No, I understand catholic theology Pity on you

[@verntoews6937]

Question is,which important details has Dr Hahn missed. You have to consider all scripture. Jesus once rebuked Peter saying Satan get thee behind me

[@verntoews6937]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my you too fail to follow scripture

[@verntoews6937]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my you persecute Christ by making Mary his equal or denial that anyone can come to god through him without a Pope or priest to mediate

[@verntoews6937]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my it is holy scripture that condemns the Pagan traditions of the Catholic Church not I

[@erickrenaldotube]

How come you call that a proof? What you are doing is apologetics, trying to justify your own thought / argument. There is no any verse / word from all of the apostles, not even from St. Paul whose knowledge (we can say) the most advance among the apostles, admitting Petrine Primacy. Allow me to explain why Simon did call to find a replacement for Judas; According the Gematria (Jewish numerology), 12 is the representation of Israel. So when Judas died, Simon felt the needs to complete the number 12.

[@erickrenaldotube]

And you think that Peter ordered us to have Sunday service instead of Shabbat? Or Peter instructed us to go to the Church instead of Synagogue? Or to perform aliyah to Vatican instead of Jerusalem?