Bishop Barron on Papal Infallibility

[@BishopBarron]

Well, Jesus used the metaphor of keys.

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, I find this post really puzzling. Analogies are helpful, it seems to me, precisely to those who are not in the choir. They are an attempt to build a bridge between the known and the unknown. I don't know what you think is "simplistic" about the analogies I'm using in this video.

[@thecatatemyface24]

Doing Theology as a degree and really struggled to understand this topic as I am not Catholic. Out of all my lectures you were the only person who made it simple enough for me to understand. THANK YOU! I will be citing you in my essay. Thanks again

[@carlottaohara7668]

I wish I’d had this clear insightful explanation of Papal infallibility for my Episcopalian Mother who questioned that doctrine.

[@BishopBarron]

That is such nonsense! Teachers and scholars use analogies all the time in the "modern" world. Have you ever heard of the "Big Bang," or of the "charm" and "spin" of quarks, or of the "fiscal cliff" or "the inner child?"

[@thomassalvi]

Perfectly articulated

[@sksk1995]

@hepatitis Thankyou for taking the time to research this video, your responses have helped me greatly x

[@fhatee]

Beautiful!!!!!Amazing Thank you Fr Barron

[@olawalemassive354]

Why did Peter sin if he was the Vicar of Christ? Why was James the head of the church in Jerusalem and not Peter if Peter was the Vicar of Christ? Why did Paul write most of the New Testament and not Peter? Shouldn’t the “Holy See” have done that? Through the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit established the doctrine of the church as outlined in Acts, 1 Timothy and Titus. Paul even defined the order of church government and the qualifications and responsibilities of church leaders (Acts 6:1-6; Acts 20:1-32; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). The New Testament tells us that Paul, not Peter, selected and established the early churches and their spiritual leadership (Acts 14:23; Acts 15:2; Titus 1:5). And why did Peter have difficulty understanding Paul’s books if he was the Vicar of Christ? The answer is obvious! We conclude that Peter was not the Vicar of Christ, he was not the lead apostle, and he was not the bishop of Rome. He was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. The keys of heaven were given not just to Peter but to all of the apostles. Christ is the chief cornerstone, and the prophets and apostle were the foundation.

[@MatthewWarner]

Everything about Christianity involves an extraordinary claim. And I do believe there is an extraordinary amount of evidence. And I never implied that anything was "so" simply because I believed it. I believe it because I'm more sure of it than any alternative. I believe it to be so because it is so. Not the other way around.

[@thomasgleason1638]

What do you mean when you say “Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is omniscient or immune from bad practical judgment”?

[@MatthewWarner]

@roxykattx Clearly it's not meant to be an entire case for the teaching. I don't agree that that's the argument Fr. Barron is making here, though. Either way, you should check out the following if you'd like to learn more about the Church's teaching on Papal Infallibility: catholic[dot]com/tracts/papal-infallibility (u will have to replace the [dot] obviously)

[@sksk1995]

Father, i am a catholic who has recently watched angelica zambranos testimony... would you watch that and tell me what you think ? maybe even do a video on it ...

[@MatthewWarner]

@brineted1010 I'm not sure what makes you think I don't know that. I understand what ex-cathedra is and when the Pope speaks infallibly. But you said that there are ex cathedra statements that were "changed by others in history." That is absolutely untrue.

[@tomgreene8480]

St Paul saw ''through a glass darkly''...a truly humble statement ...a bit more might not go amiss.

[@ewaldradavich7307]

No man is infallible. Only God is infallible.

[@kikojoseph4817]

Basically - the key is "occulted" knowledge. Meaning that we can create an institution of power and influence, that will be upheld if we implement occulted (hidden) knowledge and use the ignorance of the uninitiated to uphold this institution.

[@JohnAllenSoares]

That doesn't make any sense when you actually pick up a book and look into what the Papacy is all about. I'll agree, the wording in this video is a little confusing, but if you were actually concerned with understanding what the Pope is, you wouldn't make your decision after watching a 4 minute video on youtube. The Pope is infallible in certain contexts. Not every context. This is, I find, the most common misconception about Papal infallibility. The Pope cannot expound new revelations, nor do we believe that Jesus talks to him on some personal level on which he does not talk to the rest of us, nor do we believe that a Pope is allowed to contradict Tradition, Scripture and Magisterial authority. So, if the Pope walks outside and says something on TV, that is not an infallible statement, no matter how much the news media wants you to believe that it is. His authority extends, in the most basic sense, only as far as deciding how the truth is to be exercised in real time and even then, it is kept within some pretty strict checks in order to be considered infallible. We know the teachings, but how do we implement them in the present age, how do we carry them out, what are the nuances to how a certain teaching applies to a certain place and a certain time. The Apostles were doing this after Jesus ascended into heaven and the Bishops are still doing it now, with the Office of Peter at their head. This is not some mystical concept in which we believe that God hand picked a man to stand in his place on earth. We simply believe that Jesus left that authority in the hands of Peter as the head of the apostles and that the authority was intended to be handed down to a successor, just as it has been so with all the apostles. We don't think he's a different kind of man or that he's somehow more divine than the rest of us, he's just been given certain authorities through succession. The fact that the Pope cannot change Dogmas ought to tell you that we don't believe that the Pope is universally infallible in everything he does. Nor do we believe that he has "Hidden Knowledge."

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

As no human being has the capacity to determine anything at all regarding spiritual matters, how could "peer review" by other human beings hold any relevance?

[@johntaylor4707]

Yes I agree, he says praying to Mary is nonsense, I think he is indeed correct.

[@billybagbom]

Can you document Pope Benedict's unbelief in the dogma of papal infallibility?

[@PInk77W1]

Never heard that. But a popes personal beliefs has nothing to do with his office or his infallibility. The pope can be an atheist or a great sinner But a pope CANT teach error as doctrine

[@MatthewWarner]

All analogies break down at some point. That's all ur highlighting here. The point he's making is not that the umpire is infallible - as u know. But simply that HAVING an arbiter like the ump is what makes play possible. The Church needs the same thing. The Pope doesn't restrict faith or unity, he makes it possible. God knew his Church would need a present, earthly arbiter to remain unified/true. So he gave us that & protected him under rare instances thru the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

[@johnbeer4249]

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. John 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

[@Eagle027]

Mary as the Church recognizes is a saint, which simply means her soul and as the Church teaches, and body reside in heaven. Nothing more, nothing less

[@MatthewWarner]

The Catholic Church is the organization that set the canon of the New Testament, preserved it and is the reason it is even possible for you to read it today. Even Protestant scholars admit this. Nothing in Catholic teaching contradicts scripture when that scripture is interpreted properly and understood within the context from which it was written and used.

[@neoknux009]

Oh sorry... I was not trying to show info for infallibility. But i was trying to lay some foundation for the primacy of Rome (and hence Bishop of Rome) over other Churches. However , my two cents, Heretics will always come around, they didnt just exist in the ancient times. (Exactly what Father Barron is trying to say) . So if during the early centuries Churches turned to Rome during confusion, the Catholic Church Continues this tradition.

[@andrewturnbull4434]

I love so much how there are people here who appear to be here with sole reason of attempting to discredit idea of Infallibility and in turn, the Catholic Church. I must ask...why? The Magisterium and Papal Infallibility cannot be perfectly explained here in a short clip. If Pope JP2 believed in 1 thing and Benedict another is redundant as they are not explicitly articulating Church Teaching. So go back to one of your 35000 different protestant denominations, all saying they are the True Church. I'm going to stick to the one with 2000 years of history.

[@andrewturnbull4434]

The Catholic Church claims a direct descent from Jesus from the Apostles. Protestant Churches that separated try and make that are doing so under some false pretence. If you are here simply to cause problems, pick a fight etc then please take your complaints somewhere.

[@baoduong2203]

Andrew Turnbull I am curious about your thoughts on the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians will claim and they are the one true church of catholic. The original church, in which the Catholic Church branched off at 1054.

[@andrewturnbull4434]

If all you are trying to do is engage in a conversation in which the evidence clearly exists why ask me then? I make these claims exactly on that history, history you can look up yourself. So start there. All you want to do is throw it on me and take no responsibility for looking up things yourself so try starting there.

[@baoduong2203]

Well I have been researching between the orthodox faith and the Roman Catholic faith. And its been a struggle for me to determine which of the two are the faiths should I practice. As a human, I know that I should never always depend on myself on certain matter, which is why I asked for your opinion. To be able to hear from another perspective. To see if I am missing something that I never thought about. I'll guess its a good thing that I am speaking with a RCIA to hear their perspective. I wanted to hear your perspective since you are a practicing Roman Catholic, who seems to know a lot about his faith.

[@loganspence1147]

the only infallibility is found in God, trust no man to tell you he knows only trust Jesus and then you know

[@0r14n583lt]

We’re experiencing a lot of bickering in 2021. I’ve heard some strange admissions from the current Pope and I’ve seen sacrilegious things. St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome may even need to be re-consecrated after what has been done there. I pray that our Pope renew his faith in Jesus Christ. In the media, he is demonstrating otherwise.

[@DanielÓNiadh]

I take it, you're another 'conservative' Catholic. Please focus on the Catholic Social Teaching. Even Pope Bendedict praises Democratic Socialism.

[@marioriospinot]

Nice.

[@neoknux009]

"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, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." St. Irenaeus Of Lyons [Against Heresies 3:3:2 (c. A.D. 189)]

[@RehdClouhd]

What makes you think the current Roman Catholic Church is the church with the 'keys'?

[@TimotheosCauvin]

But now you have an umpire who says "Who am I to judge" and who seems willing to delegate major decisions to the teams on the field. So, when the Germans cheer "Goal!", and the Polish scream "Offside!" what will be done? Different results in different countries?

[@michaelw2838]

+TimotheosCauvin The best thing that happen in the latest Synod. Liberal Bishops exposed themselves.

[@Shizz2333]

That was put deeply out of context. Check out Barron's video about that.

[@johnbeer4249]

So what did Catholic church do? In 325 A.D. at The First Council of Nicaea the Roman Emperor Constantine came up with the Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea and also created statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy- the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. This is where your tradition and beliefs came from and how it started. Constantine then blended Pagan traditions with Christians to convert Romans.

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

How does the church contradict the Word of God? What is the Word of God? Is it only the Bible? Is it the tradition passed on from the Apostles? Please clarify what you mean -- the Word of God -- what that means, specifically?

[@MatthewWarner]

John, according to the first chapter of the book of the Bible that you are named after, the "Word" is Jesus. The Word was made flesh. The Bible is one particular (and essential and completely important) part of Jesus' teaching that happened to be written down. But was not all that Jesus taught, nor all he instructed us to follow. In fact, the Bible itself says to not only follow what has been written, but those Traditions passed by word of mouth from Jesus/Apostles.

[@1sola1verita]

Excellent video, a difficult topic well-explained. thanks

[@MatthewWarner]

@brineted1010 Additionally, it seems that you believe the ONLY things Catholics have to believe and are infallible teachings of the Church are ex cathedra statements. This is incorrect. "All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching [magisterium], proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." - Vatican Council

[@marykfilms]

Orthodox Christians have always believed that it is the Church (with its councils led by the Holy spirit and the reasoned understanding of God fearing and God loving bishops) that is infallible, not any one leader, as was modeled in the first council of Jerusalem. No one leader, no matter how saintly, should ever decide matters of the Faith. Because of this heresy, Catholic doctrine has accumulated some very serious errors.

[@TheTruthgeneral]

every organized church has a system of authority that decides on doctrine and that is binding on the church members there is no need for anything resembling a Pope to maintain stability and consistency in the interpretation of scripture

[@tanishalavri3278]

Your statement is self-contradictory.

[@tomgreene8480]

This ''definition'' of infallibility is a bit wide.....a lot is being wheeled in here....authority and infallibility are not the same thing.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

+Tom Greene Compare and contrast Numbers 27: 12-23 & Deuteronomy 34: 9 to Jesus Christ's statements regarding the same "Spirit of truth" (to YHWH's statement regarding the "Spirit of wisdom") guaranteed to the Apostle's as Jesus Christ's successors (cf. e. g. John 14: 26; John 15: 26; John 16: 13) and witness after the Ascension (cf. e. g. Matthew 16: 18, 19; Matthew 18: 18; John 20: 15-19).

[@tomgreene8480]

Thanks for comment.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Tom Greene You're welcome. As a former Protestant turned 'Johnny-come-lately' Catholic, I struggled with issues regarding the nature of the episcopate, the Petrine primacy / supremacy, papal infallibility. I spent the better part of two years investigating, studying, and praying in regards to these and corollary issues. There are some really good resources available such as Steve Ray's "Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church"; Scott Butler's "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy"; Paul McPartlan's "A Service of Love: Papal Primacy, the Eucharist, and Church Unity"; St. John Paul II's "Ut Unum Sint".

[@tomgreene8480]

Thank you for reply.

[@danielnewhouse5044]

If you start with a false premise, whatever you prove is false. There are 2 possible premises for infallibility, that love comes from sin, or that love comes from language. If God believes love comes from sin, then she is fallible. And that is why the body matters more than the mind.

[@oracawa]

The keys to the kingdom of heaven was the statement that Peter made, “you are the Christ the son of the living God.”this is the keys to heaven. This includes all who understand and believe this.

[@augustsoomre4795]

Jesaja 54:5 Sest sinu Looja on su mees, vägede Issand on tema nimi; sinu lunastaja on Iisraeli Püha, teda nimetatakse kogu maailma Jumalaks. Johannese esimene kiri 5:20 Aga me teame, et Jumala Poeg on tulnud ja andnud meile mõistmise, et me tunneksime ära Tõelise. Ja meie oleme Tõelises, tema Pojas Jeesuses Kristuses. Seesama on tõeline Jumal ja igavene elu. 21 Lapsed, hoiduge ebajumalate eest!

[@JoeJackaboa]

Veni creator spiritu... Mentes tuorum visitas... imple superna gracia... Yup, that song was being played on the violin!

[@johnconstantinegrey7793]

An American Pope would be awesome.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

council: namely, the nature of Jesus Christ (was He the preexistent only begotten Son of the Father, of the same substance as Him or a created demi-god below the Father but above the angels; as well as, as secondary as this may seem to us today, fixing the way of calculating the date of Easter, which appeared to be a source of contention at the time - would it be a fixed day every year (which would mean it might fall on Mon, Tue, Wed, Sun, Fri, etc) or would it always be reckoned on a Sunday (

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

political purposes it served for Constantine, seeing the decadence in morals of the people as the old Roman pantheon of the gods began to serve less and less of an importance in the populace's lives, and as Christianity began to become more and more popular with its beliefs and moral code, he decided to move it from a persecuted religion to officially acceptable. However, although as emperor he could convene the ecumenical council of bishops, it was they who decided the matters before the

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Magisterium, those with teaching authority, that is, the bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome). You've got a giant, self-fulfilling persecution complex and a self-righteous self-justifying Jeremiah complex.

[@neoknux009]

" it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this] by indicating 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; "

[@upinsmoke2897]

You're missing my point."Mary being born without sin." Is dogma of the Catholic church. Papal Infallibility "in theory" is only on faith and morals (according to the church). The point I'm getting at is that papal infallibility is set up so that the pope can never say anything against the grain. Not only do I not believe in papal infallibility, but whenever a pope speaks "infallibly" its always some minor rule simply restated. My question is why do they even call it papal infallibility?

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

Titles are assigned all of the time; it does not mean that those titles, of themselves, actually have any validity

[@MatthewWarner]

@brineted1010 What makes u a "true faithful catholic" if u do not accept the dogma of the Catholic Church? This is contradictory. Additionally, it seems like u don't understand papal infallibility, so it's hard to see how you can disagree with something you don't even understand. I'm assuming you didn't mean "ex-cathedral." Also, do you not call your dad your father? The passage also says not to call people "teacher." Do you call anyone teacher? The Church canonized the bible and gave it to us.

[@johnbeer4249]

From the early 1st and 2nd Christians we know that that other gospels and letters existed because they were written about. It is said that there was as many as 50 gospels of Christ. However as soon as Jesus died and resurrected cults emerged up that perverted the word and his teaching. Some of these were called Gnostic

[@ThomWillis]

@theone1087 Did you listen to Fr. Barron's definition of infallibility? It is not the possession of divinity, but authority granted by God, the same authority granted to St. Peter when he proclaimed Christ the messiah. In Matthew 16:17 Jesus said that the truth was not revealed to Peter through material means, but from God the Father. That is the same way it is revealed to the Church today, and will until He returns! God bless you my friend.

[@FaithandReason101]

the bible was written by men; but that doesnt mean they werent inspired by the Holy Spirit; that is what has made all the difference.

[@BostonDeafApostolate]

This would be even better with captions.

[@marykfilms]

The doctrinal change that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son has made this third person of the Trinity seriously demeaned in stature. The top down 'infallible' polity of the Catholic Church reflects this changed Catholic understanding of the Trinity: the laity is demeaned and powerless and has been therefore subject to much abuse. Orthodox laity are part of the holy orders and are highly valued as watchdogs of the faith, quick to point out heresies and missteps.

[@pmoran9785]

Free speech is anointed doctrine / makes infallibility a mute point

[@roxykattx]

@ohmgrown1991 ??? Read my post again. It does not say anyone has claimed the pope is immune to sin.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Straw man argument: your caricature is, in reality, a mischaracterization. Papal infallibility does NOT mean that the Holy Father is prevented from "making mistakes", if by that you mean, he is prevented from improperly balancing his personal checkbook, or that he can predict who will win the World Series or the Kentucky Derby, or that he is prevented from making administrative errors of judgement. Papal infallibility also does NOT mean that when implementing policy related to an issue he

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

John, I'm just trying to follow JESUS' example in His view of the Church, for what does Scripture [the Book which I love] say? Eph 5, "Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." I love Christ's Church because Christ does. What's wrong with that?

[@ajtsanvk]

Nicely articulated .. But i still can't buy it as an orthodox

[@freedomwarrior7734]

This doctrine contradicts itself. How can a pope be incapable of error in his knowledge of Jesus yet is capable of error in his judgements? Either the pope can never be wrong in any judgements or he can be wrong in any judgements. You can't have both. I understand that a central authority is needed to keep the church together. But to proclaim the pope as infallible borders on cultism.

[@DinosaurKale]

The video completely dodged the question of what the term, infallible, means. The closest it came was to say that an authority figure appointed to prevent bickering is infallible. I'm certain no one, Catholic or otherwise, believes that is what it means.

[@alexrdy1986]

He is not infallible in every subject, but only in teaching truths about faith and moral formally... not even when he grants an interview or something... It is like Bishop Barron said, when his authority is necessary to keep the game going, when an important truth is to be determined decisively.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

only and ever does it perfectly and does not fail to omit things that need to be done, or fails to do things that shouldn't be done. Papal infallibility does NOT mean that the Holy Father is incapable of personally sinning in his own life. He is after all only human. What papal infallibility DOES mean is that in certain delimited and well defined ways, when making a pronouncement on the nature of the catholic Faith and morals, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

after all since Christ was crucified on Fri and arose on Sunday it would seem appropriate for it to always fall on a Sunday. However, should it track with the Jewish Passover, etc., you get the point). I am willing to be open minded if you will simply refrain from making blanket, sweeping generalizations and present your case. For example, just WHAT "pagan traditions" do you allege Constantine foisted on the bishops and the people "to convert Romans"?

[@vasilyjc1955]

This all good but this dogma of papal infallibility was never in the early church. It became a dogma in 1870, at the 1st Vatican Council, and with the help of the ultramontanism movement within the Latin church. The early church was based on a college of bishops, a local synod. There existed no central bishop who had complete authority over the entire church.

[@johnplatko8804]

Baseball, and other sports, manage to get along with umpires that DO NOT have the power of infallibility. They make their call and the game goes on. People accept that a bad call from time to time is part of the game. As people and technology improved people found better ways to minimize the effect of the very real fallibility of umpires. They can ask other umpires for an opinion. Today they can even check a replay! Sometimes calls get reversed. And the game is better for it. Food for thought.

[@MatthewWarner]

with all due respect, that doesn't make any sense. That you would say that means you have not actually heard what Fr. Barron (or any of the philosophical doctors of the Church) have to say on much of this.

[@FaithandReason101]

the teaching of pope's infallibility (and those magisterium teaching in unity with Him), when teaching on faith and morals, existed long before the 1870s. often the catholic church officially states things as doctrines, that have long been believed, only when the need becomes great. Luke10:16 and mathew18:18 already give evidence to this truth. we see peter in john21:15-17 receiving a special designation over the church. finally, history itself shows that this charism has been upheld.

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

Those are not analogies; analogies are comparisons. Those are simply descriptive phrases.

[@1sola1verita]

I agree - so don't make any more comments!!!

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

Fr. Barron, you stated in reply to me in the comment section of another video that the pope has used the infallibility consideration only twice in the past 2,000 years (your words), and in the course of that reply you did not state as to what those two considerations even entailed. As it is virtually never a consideration, whether someone believes it exists or not, why does it seem to hold such a prevalent distinction for you?

[@anthonybailey1407]

Catholics believe that on essenital matters of faith and morals, the Chuch is Infallible. Infalibility refers to the belief that a certain teaching is free from error. The bishops as a group in union with the pope tech infallibly when they make a solem declaration concerning a mater of belief or morality. The pope, as Peter's successor, is said to be infallible when he teaches Ex Cathedra, that is, under the following condtions: When he teaches as th visible head of the Church To all Catholics

[@llandonross1372]

The Pope is infallible when teaching on faith and morals, not just Ex Cathedra , but whether it is encyclicals or preaching from St. Peter’s he is protected from errors

[@FaithandReason101]

the bible does say in the end, there will be those (you?) who call truth falsehoods...

[@Nicodermus4Life]

The Catholic Church compiled the bible over hundreds of years with Her authority from Christ. Remember the Church came first, then the bible. It didn't just fall from the sky pre-printed and compiled. Christians even were confused about what constituted it. Had it not been for the Catholic Church, no Christian would know what scripture is inspired had it not been assured by the infallibility of the Pope and ecumenical councils that gave it to us. (Or even be able to throw it at us like usual)

[@Pi10sco]

@papalsoldier Amen.

[@Pi10sco]

@IDH77 Another sola scriptura guy, huh? For Transubstantiation, see John 6:22-59. For the Pope's authority, Matthew 16:18. The various titles of the Pope, such as Pontifex Maximus, I grant you, are not there because Peter went to Rome after the events narrated in Acts. When all you have is the NT, you ignore the many contemporary accounts of the Apostolic Fathers. They are certainly interesting reading if you want to know more about early Church history. As no doubt any Christian should.

[@loganprichard1439]

This is circular reasoning.

[@seanynut1994]

Jesus spoke in Parables not to patronize but to put across his point. With Fr Barron he uses such analogies as an effective method to put a point across. Take it from me someone who had a speech and language impediment and overcame it by understanding use of language more deeply. It's not patronizing to simplify my friend.

[@upinsmoke2897]

I don't know. I'm not Catholic.

[@peterlocascio2924]

THE PROTESTANT RESPONSE EASILY REFUTING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH’S CLAIM OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY: Christ's Apostle Peter never claimed to be infallible. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed in 1870 and became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error." [ P. J. Toner, Infallibility, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910]. Also see: First Vatican Council, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapters 4, 9. According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for an ex cathedra papal teaching to be considered "infallible" are as follows: 1. The pope must speak as the Roman Pontiff ex cathedra (i.e. in the role of shepherd and teacher of all Christians)--by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. 2. The pope must define or decide upon a doctrine or issue which deals with morals and the Faith. 3. The pope's decision binds the entire Church and becomes a dogma held firmly and immutably. As a Protestant historian, scholar (M.A.: NYU) and author of numerous articles and books, I CAN EASILY DISPROVE the Papacy's claim of infallibility by citing just one instance of a pope's ex cathedra decision (which meets the 3 criteria mentioned immediately above) yet which was fundamentally flawed, erroneous, purely political in its motivation, and which ultimately had a devastating effect on the authority, standing, and power of the Papacy. I hereby cite the historical instance of Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-1534) and Henry VIII "King of England and Lord King of Ireland" (r. 1509-1547). Pope Clement VII’s fallible and fallacious decision not to grant Henry VIII his divorce from Henry's first wife, the Spanish Roman Catholic Queen Catherine of Aragon, had a devastating and catastrophic effect on European history: the Roman Catholic Church lost England forever. Henry VIII-a serious scholar of The Scriptures--was for many years a devout Roman Catholic ruler and a Renaissance prince. Henry had even written a defense of the Roman Catholic Church against Luther-Henry's Assertio Septem Sacramentorum Defense of the Seven Sacraments (1521) for which scholarly treatise the then-reigning pope conferred upon Henry VIII the Latin honorific title of “Fidei Defensor” (Defender of The Faith). Henry was correct in his assertion that Leviticus 20:21 justified his petition to the pope for a divorce-annulment from his wife Queen Catherine. "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." [Leviticus 20:21 KJV]. Therefore Catholic apologetics-then and now-could not argue that the pope’s decision not to grant Henry VIII an annulment/divorce from Catherine of Aragon was not an example of the pope’s infallibility power, by falsely claiming that “The King’s Great Matter” was secular and not a pronouncement ex cathedral about any article of The Roman Catholic Faith. In fact, Pope Clement VII’s decision not to grant Henry VIII his divorce from Catherine-although purely political-was, indeed, an official papal pronouncement (a pontification) on an article of morals and the Faith as contained in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus. Hence, this one historical example alone--Pope Clement VII’s official decision concerning Henry’s VIII’s "Great Matter"-is sufficient for Protestants to demonstrate and to prove-that the Roman Catholic claim of papal infallibility is FALSE, BASELESS, AND ARROGANT-as are many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. England-which officially become a Protestant nation from the time Henry VIII proclaimed The Act of Supremacy in 1534-flourished and was victorious over popery after Elizabeth I defeated Philip II of Spain’s Catholic Armada. As we all know from objective history, England flourished in Elizabeth’s long and glorious reign. Elizabeth, the most brilliant ruler in 16th century Europe, who knew Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, other languages and who was an expert on the harpsichord (a musical keyboard instrument then called a Virginal)-Elizabeth, “The Virgin Queen”-honored by poets as “Gloriana”--patronized learning, the arts and literature, making possible The Age of Shakespeare). England went on to become the world’s most prosperous nation and greatest superpower of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries-precisely BECAUSE she rejected popery, decisively defeated the navy of the pope’s lackey, King Philip II of Spain, and embraced Protestantism as the True Faith-and so God blessed England and caused it to prosper-as God also blessed England’s colonies in North America. P.S. to BISHOP ROBERT BARRON: You show a color picture of Bernini's Cathedra Petri (1666) in the apse of St. Peter's Basilica. For centuries your church has claimed that what is inside the gilded Baroque 17th century chair was a wooden chair upon which Peter sat while leading the church. Modern science has revealed that the inner wooden chair actually dates from ca. 800 (Early Middle Ages: Era of Charlemagne). The Cathedra Petri--despite Bernini's artistic genius--is yet another example of a claim by the Roman Catholic Church which has proven to be false. The author of this Protestant Response is an historian, scholar (M.A.: NYU) and author who currently resides in San Diego, CA.

[@WorkingCatholic]

"You have replaced the guidance of the living Holy Spirit with opinions of man." No. Who was Jesus speaking to when He spoke those Words from Jn 16? His Apostles--the first representatives of His Church on earth. He also said that he would be with them always, even until the end of time. Did Jesus think his Apostles would live until the end of time? Of course, not. He was speaking to them as representatives (the first bishops) of His Church. The Church is guided to all truth.

[@upinsmoke2897]

I love how Papal Infallibility is only on issues of faith and morals. So if I say something that's vague, but reiterates doctrine or dogma I'm infallible. Check it out. Mary was born without sin. I'm infallible! It's vague and in line with Catholic dogma!

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

of something changes the content of its Truth. To be serious about the truth is very biblical. Jesus Himself said, "Sanctify them with the Truth. Thy word is Truth." The gnostic pseudo-Gospels were claiming things that directly contradicted the apostolic faith: Jesus was married, had children, its not about salvation from sin in one's life but about attaining a so-called "higher knowledge" or "gnosis" that only the gnostic teachers were privy to and only the "initiated" were given access.

[@lproof8472]

Papal infallibility is necessary due to the primacy of Scripture. That Scripture does not support Papal infallibility.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

John this bit of unhistorical blather you are bandying about is the hackneyed canard that Protestants attempt to resort to when they cease to understand that the catholic Church's Faith is founded on Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The council of Nicaea was called because a presbyter named Arius who had been preached that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Father, but was a created being in the order of a demi-god (lower than God, but higher than the angels, the first created being) attempting

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

I hope you aren't suggesting that "sin" doesn't exist. I should think that murder, rape, ethnic genocide, the near collapse of the world economy should be enough to prove that "sin" is ubiquitous and therefore universal. "Original sin" refers to the very first sin ever committed, hence the term "original". The point is that sin had a beginning that originates with Satan and man, and is not God's intention or design.

[@davidvazquez1425]

The pope is a human being chosen by god but he is not clear from sin " stated in the beginning statement"

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

Never understood why Papal Infallibility' is controversial. All it means is that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Magisterium when they are interpreting scripture to formulate Doctrine and therefore that interpretation is infallible. Every Protestant pastor/spiritual advisor/individual is their own Pope and consider themselves infallible. They all interpret scripture to form their own doctrines and they all claim the holy spirit guides them when they do. They all believe their 'church' teaches the only Truth otherwise what's the point of belonging to that sect.

[@timspangler8440]

cocolocooz The Holy Spirit guides BELIEVERS. It is NOT true that the Holy Spirit only guides leaders.

[@Prancer1231]

Tim Spangler Then why is he guiding all you "believers" into differing and conflicting opinions?

[@timspangler8440]

Prancer1231 Because we don't have a man-made system which demands absolute submission to the leader(s)

[@Prancer1231]

Tim Spangler If you were in submission to Christ then you would have no problem submitting to the authority he established in Peter and his successors. You submit to no one but yourself and your opinions. Jesus founded a church and gave it his authority. Since you refuse to submit to the authority Jesus established, you refuse to submit to God.

[@timspangler8440]

Prancer1231 I submit to Christ, who has given me discernment between dead religiosity and a vibrant relationship with God lived out step by step each day.

[@roxykattx]

Well, maybe one should not expect too much from a 4 minute video, but the argument here is pretty weak. In effect, Father Barron is saying that it would be awfully nice if the Pope were indeed infallible in matters of the faith, and therefor he must be. As for Matthew 16:18, that is awfully flimsy. And isn't the doctrine of Papal infallibility recent? (i.e. 19th century). Were the popes before then infallible without knowing it?

[@berwynsigns4115]

"Lest it devolve into bickering." Protestantism IS bickering.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

to convince people of his way of thinking. I hope you aren't suggesting that since their ultimately is, from God's point of view, as enunciated in the Bible, for example at Eph. 4: 3-6, that what that Truth is, is unimportant. So many armchair experts who emotively assert into the void with no specifics, no facts, no evidence. For example, for any historically minded individual, it is common knowledge that there was a symbiotic relationship between the state and the Church. Whatever the

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

Where does the Bible say it's the ONLY source of the Word of God? That's what you're implicitly assuming, John, but where does the Bible say that? I'll assume (rightfully, I think), that the Bible nowhere says that, and that God's Word is an Oral Word, which was passed on by the Apostles and held in Tradition as well as the Scriptures. What's your evidence?

[@dan69052]

Polls show that all religions are clearly on the downfall. It is well to ask why this is so.As people begin to think for themselves they see that pompous old irrelevant men marching around in ridiculous customs may not be the best source of meaningful knowledge. Love, compassion, empathy, justice,& reason are the pillars of morality& Humanism. We can figure out right from wrong without a priest rabbi mullah pope or an invisible man in the sky. Religion will fade like all the others. Peace

[@brineted1010]

@MatthewWarner It is very disappointing that u do notknow that the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra .yes I can be a catholic and still disagree with some unnecessary man-made doctrine and dogmas. However calling someone father and teacher is quite a different thing and very contextual. But calling someBODY HOLY is totally against the lords teaching.

[@marykfilms]

Another very serious error in Catholic proclamation of infallible doctrine is the new teaching that the Virgin Mary herself was conceived without sexual congress of her holy parents, Joachim and Anna. There used to even be a Catholic movement afoot to proclaim that Mary never actually died (she would thus be better than Jesus!) For Orthodox, Mary was fully human in conception/death as well as the greatest saint who ever lived, an inspiration for all of us to imitate. She was not a goddess.

[@astrol4b]

the immaculate conception doesn't state that mary was born without her parents having sex, it just state that she was born without the original sin, it's not that extraordinary /supernatural statement.

[@johnbeer4249]

the bible is the word. And how does it contradict the catholic church? Have you read one?

[@marykfilms]

Catholics don't need to 'state' that Mary was a goddess. Doesn't not being conceived in the normal way together with not dying automatically make one a 'goddess?' According to Scriptures, only two people never 'died.' It's not that they're never going to die; it's only that their death has been delayed. They will be the 'two witnesses' to come (Revelation). Strange doctrines happen when only one person is in charge of the faith. God bless all devout Catholics.

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

Everyone is born without sin, because "original sin" does not exist. No one is responsible for anyone else's sin, no matter whom or when, and no one inherits anyone else's sin. The premise is absurd. The only sin which anyone is responsible for is their own. And no human being is infallible in any context, including any Pope.

[@Ettoredipugnar]

None of the Patriarchs of the East knew who Jesus is ? St. Peter along with St. Paul was in Antioch first. The Throne of Antioch is called " Twice Blessed ".