Scott Hahn explains Papal Infallibility
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ม.ค. 2012
- Dr. Scott Hahn answers a caller who explains that papal infallibility is a roadblock to his conversion.
www.catholic.com
Dr. Scott Hahn was born in 1957, and has been married to his wife Kimberly since 1979. He and Kimberly have six children and are expecting their fifth grandchild. An exceptionally popular speaker and teacher, Dr. Hahn has delivered numerous talks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics related to Scripture and the Catholic faith. Hundreds of these talks have been produced on audio and videotapes by St. Joseph Communications. His talks have been effective in helping thousands of Protestants and fallen away Catholics to (re)embrace the Catholic faith.
He is currently a Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he has taught since 1990, and is the founder and director of the Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology. In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
Dr. Hahn is also the bestselling author of numerous books including The Lamb's Supper, Reasons to Believe, and Rome Sweet Home (co-authored with his wife, Kimberly). Some of his newest books are Many Are Called, Hope for Hard Times, The Catholic Bible Dictionary, Covenant and Communion, and Signs of Life.
Scott received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy, and Economics from Grove City College, Pennsylvania in 1979, his Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982, and his Ph.D. in Biblical Theology from Marquette University in 1995. Scott has ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience in Protestant congregations (in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Virginia) and is a former Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. He was ordained in 1982 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1986.
Scott Hahn never fails to explain everything so perfectly
As one who returned to his Catholic roots by way of Protestantism and then Eastern Orthodoxy, I appreciate Dr. Hahn's way of focussing and condensing these crucial issues. Having turned away from Christ and His Body, I heard the simple message of repentance and forgiveness from Protestants. Having discovered Church history and the mysterious/sacramental nature of salvation, I found the apostolic Church again by turning eastward. This year, I was reunited to the fullness of the Church. Pray 4 me
To non-Catholics there are two points that need to be made about papal infallibility:
1) The doctrine of papal infallibility actually is more restrictive than the situation that existed before the doctrine was declared. Before, pretty much anything the Pope said was taken to be infallible, or at least without error, on any subject, even science. Now that the doctrine is defined, it's clear that the pope is only infallible when he teaches ex cathedra on faith and morals consistently with the apostolic deposit of faith.
2) The doctrine of papal infallibility does not mean that the pope gets to make up any old doctrine he wants and declare it as an infallible truth. The pope has to maintain continuity with what the church has always taught. He can never contradict any existing doctrine, only refine it and extend it to cover new cases that didn't exist at the time of the apostles.
+dlwatib Well said....although much has been written on these .
dlwatib thank you! I feel like many are unaware/ignore these things!
Dr. Scott Hann has been in so many dialogue, debates, study, discernment and experience. He utters explanation no sincere debater can oppose.
Unity. There's a diversity for sure. But symphonic diversity. That deepens and enriches it.
"But God is able to write straight with crooked lines..." :) Praised be Jesus!
Scott Hahn is my most favorite theologian as a priest. A GREAT DISCIPLE OF JESUS👍👍👍
Papal infallibility, as I learned in school, applies to the Pope's authority when declaring an important matter on faith and morals. Usually, after a council of bishops or elders as described in the Acts has forwarded to the Pope their deliberations, the Pope then issues such declarations. The papal declarations are all Christ-centered and Bible based, if we care to read through them; i.e. Vatican 2 documents...
Thanks a lot, It's wonderfull to know that the biggest christian group in the U.S is now catholic with almost 70 million people. God Bless you.
Thanks for this meaningful post! Very informative and useful.
I think Dr Hahn is not saying that 'the man is infallible' - papal infallibility is not a property arising from the man or his character, but is derived from a God-given covenant
Yes,
if you meet Pope on the street and he gives you some statement about faith it is not in category of infallible dogmas.
Best regards, Jakov
Thanks for that. Dr. Hahn. I am what you would call a cradle Catholic. I came across a book called "I Dare You God" by Mike Hicks. It's about how the author came to see that God is real after he asked God for proof. While I did feel that God led me to pick it up, I was troubled by what the author said about Catholicism, asking at one point, "How can the Pope be infallible?", after quoting Romans 3:23. This video is enough for me to feel that God means for me to stay in the Catholic Church.
I understood incorrectly or the guy who asked Prof. Hahn said that he is in the process of conversion to catholicism?
I'm from Brazil and really like this show, how can I hear you guys on internet?
Thanks a lot.
As I heard this response - admittedly offered by reflective and kindly men - it actually seemed to refute papal infallibility, citing the fact that men who had served as Pope had in fact been fallible, but that God was nevertheless able to accomplish some good end through them, despite their failings. I'm not sure if that's what Catholics typically mean by "Papal Infallibility" but it makes more sense to me than the idea that each head of the church has been a perfect character.
i love you sir scott hann! u r so intelligent!
Some great points!
Wow, I had read Dr. Scott's comments about Isaiah 22:22, relating to what Jesus said when he passed the keys to peter, but I hadn't heard the part about David having 12 ministers and only 1 leader. Now that is really interesting, with that information you can know exactly what Jesus meant. And infallibility is implied when Jesus says "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.".
not a single dislike how awesome is that
Good man , honest like Peter n Paul+ ...test and digest then time invest 4 the best Gerard
I have a question to those that believe. Why did God not gift us all with the Holy Spirit from the beginning? If Adam and Eve had the Holy Spirit within them, from what I understand they would not have disobeyed God and eaten from the Tree of Life.
It appears (from a non believer) that the Holy Spirit coming to a person is them being saved. It also appears to make them good and God fearing people who follow the Will of God. (when I say "make" I don't mean force, I mean that experience changes you)
The gift of the Holy Spirit does not take away your free will, you can still screw up unfortunately :-(. During the creation God "breathed in the nostrils" of Adam to give him life. Breath in the Bible indicates the spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. I'm not an expert but I believe that would mean that he was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. when a person is anointed with the Holy Spirit during conformation it does not make you a perfect person, in fact it helps you realize just how imperfect you are. It doesn't mean that it's all flowers and fairy tales from here on out, it simply means you have more tools in your tool belt to deal with the ups and downs of life. In the Baltimore chaticism it describes life without the Holy Spirit as though you're rowing through an ocean on a row boat and life WITH It is like sailing on a magnificent cruise ship. if you would like to try it out you can always pray to the Holy Spirit even if you're a non-believer! Pray to him in this way: Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of thy faithful. Enkindle in us the fires of thy love. Send forth thy spirit and thou shall be created and thou shall renew the face of the earth. I hope I have helped shed a tiny bit of light on this infinitely complex subject!
What you describe is exactly the reason I ask the question, why don't we all just have the Holy Spirit within us intrinsically?
When God "breathed in the nostrils" it was his spirit or soul that was blown inside the (I assume) inanimate man God had just created from the earth. I don't think this includes the Holy Spirit, as God does not say or indicate that it's taken away when Adam is punished for his Sin. Neither is there an indication that the Holy Spirit remained with him when he was exiled (you would think this would be mentioned).
templargfx then you are probably right. I only know of that passage and John 20:22 where Jesus breathes on the disciples, giving them the Holy Spirit.
as for your question why didn't God give them the Holy Spirit. I think only God can answer that. Pray and ask him that, see if you don't get a response.
edit: this passage may shed light on why a non-believer wouldn't have Him with them:
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)
Great explanation by Dr. Hahn on this important Church doctrine. i am a "cradle Catholic", but I believe we can never stop learning about Christ's Church and it's teachings. I already shared this video with a friend! May God bless Dr. Hahn (the other guy in the video)
& bless you all :)
roberto manoel
Okay please tell me if I am comprehending this correctly. You are saying the work done by these People when done through/with the help of the Holy Spirit it makes it infallible. Anything done with the help of the Holy Spirit is what makes it infallible?
Dr Hahn gives a magnificent answer.
The Apostles were infallible (but not impeccable) when preaching the Gospel. Jesus said "whoever hears you hears me.". It follows, then, that God would prevent them from preaching error as Truth.
You see, infallibility is not a characteristic of the man. It is God preventing that man from declaring error as Truth. The biggest misconception about infallibility is that it means a man in himself is error-free in his doctrinal pronouncements. It's not the man, it's the Spirit preventing error.
The Pope does not lead the church as much as the church leads the Pope. He is figure head and the holder of the key. The "room" for the key is the body of the Church. And history takes us back to the bible, then the founding fathers, and then Jesus Christ and God himself. And that of course is a matter of faith, but one which we can know if we pray and ask for truth, wisdom, understanding, with an open heart.
Scott a wonderful response so clear and precise many seem to think that the Church is man's creation instead of God's establishment through Peter appointed by Jesus Christ, approved & anointed by the Holy Spirit so when the Pope speaks with the whole Church united & inspired by the Holy Spirit (Ex Cathedra, The Chair), it is the Holy Spirit confirming God's truths within the Holy Church & the Pope & out to the people, not the Pope's opinions as truths but God's infallible truths.
Thank you for this upload. We need to hear this more.
Wow, I had read Dr. Scott's comments about Isaiah 22:22, relating to what Jesus said when he passed the keys to peter, but I hadn't heard the part about David having 12 ministers and only 1 leader. Now that is really interesting, with that information you can know exactly what Jesus meant. And infallibility is implied when Jesus says "the devil shall not prevail".
+John Doe
If you want to ask a question, you should let others reply to you, so you will know when they have something to say.
_I never understood why the pope is even necessary. I have the Holy Ghost, Brethren and [God's] Word to guide me why do I need a pope? The Bible defines and explains itself each verse is beautifully explained and communicated by another verse. Not trying to be confrontational but I never understood the necessity of having a pope?_
º There are a few interrelated reasons, actually. The Church is visible ("take [your conflict] to the Church..." & "a city on a hill cannot be hidden."), and its earthly head is the principle of its visibility; there is one person who can represent us, and being in communion with him marks our unity with the body of the Church. The Bible is not self-interpreting. Having the Holy Spirit does not mean you will be able to interpret the Bible, since we are not told that all with the Holy Spirit have the same gifts or authority within the Church.
º For contrast, if you haven't noticed, there are multiple Protestant denominations (the 33,000 thing is probably an exaggeration {see here: www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/02/33000-protestant-denominations-no.html}, but there are still very, very many). Your brethren can 'legitimately' schism from whatever church you are part of--nothing can really stop them, partly because of an apparently flawed ecclesiology.
Yes, thats exactly how Jurisdiction works. And many Popes when Rome was still Orthodox and Catholic and the ancient Apostolic See practiced their Jurisdiction this way. A far cry from Vatican II which to paraphrase states that all Bishops are dependent on the Pope , however the Pope is not dependent on the Bishops. Rome has painted itself in a corner of piety and tradition that really has its roots in the reforms of the 9th,10th, and 11th century. The East didn't change the Creed, or the Faith!
Papal Infallibility is still something that this (Barely) Protestant can't swallow. I hold to the importance of hierarchy among Bishops: we Anglicans have our Patriarch in Canterbury , the Eastern Churches have Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch, etc. and Roman Catholics have the Bishop of Rome. I'm even okay with the Bishop of Rome being the first among those first among equals.
However, that doesn't mean papal infallibility, and Rome has abused her power and gone FAR beyond what she has been given. I consider you all brothers and sisters in Christ, but the power grab needs to stop; both your Anglican and Eastern brothers and sisters agree.
In a sense, I agree with you: the gospel of Christ (which, in its fulness, includes the whole of salvation history) is a "believe-it-or-not" story. It is a matter of faith, because it is a story that calls for a response of trust and personal commitment, a story that invites the hearer to participate in its continuing outworking in the cosmos. It is not a take-it-or-leave-it story; it clearly presents the hearer with an ultimatum. But it offers itself within a context and with appeals to reason.
The Pope is surely the first Bishop amongst all bishops. but I believe proclaiming the dogma of his infallibility was a mistake. I think so because it is not in accordance with the first 7 ecumenical councils and it has caused some pretty great division and confusion.
How can a Man be infallible?He is only a Man just like you with the same passion and imperfections. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
@robsunderlin dohh!!!
John, Simple,Jesus chose Peter above all Apostles,and told him he would be with Peter and Apostles and successors till time ends,it was not man who chose Peter but Jesus .Matt16-18,-20,28-18-20
how does Matthew 28:18-20 apply to Peter, especially when it starts out "Jesus came and spoke to them" one thing ive learned about catholics is they take scripture out of context, they misquote and misapply everything, for being the true church they sure don't know the bible
I agree with his covenental theology of the family of God culminating in the Church. I also agree that St Peter and his successors have primacy. But what I struggle with is infallibility. The Patriarch of Constantinople fulfils the role of supreme patriarch for the unity of the Orthodox faith without having to ascrible infallibility to himself. I think this is the proper role for the Bishop of Rome.
I never understood why the pope is even necessary. I have the Holy Ghost, Brethren and Gods Word to guide me why do I need a pope? The Bible defines and explains itself each verse is beautifully explained and communicated by another verse. Not trying to be confrontational but I never understood the necessity of having a pope?
Gave those keys only to Peter? OK. Peter as in the first Patriarch of the
Church of Antioch? Peter who held that position for about 30 years? Peter who just happened to be in Rome and not Antioch when he was executed?
If Peter is your key, then Antioch is your See. The Antiochian Church is STILL Orthodox today. So, when you speak of Peter having keys from Jesus, you are proclaim Orthodoxy as the true faith handed down from the Apostles.
Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter one of His Apostles His Hierarchy, infallibility in Matthew 18:18 & Matthew 16:19
Matthew 18: 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16: 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Now the above Bible Verses, if that is not INFALLIBILITY what is???
Jesus Christ said: "Tell the Church" now who was Christ referring to??? The Answer is the Church Christ left His Keys with or to whom which is St. PETER and His Successors. Or do you believe that Christ Church ended with Christ DEATH???
To believe that Christ Church ended with His death, then the gates of hell prevailed AND THE KEYS DISAPPEARED, NOT SO!!! Thus the reason why Jesus Christ said: "TELL THE CHURCH". Because they would be the one with the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM!!! AMEN
+Rebel Czech
I think your logic is flawed on several key points.
If you ever see this message, I recommend this:
www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome
I think it shows you why Antioch's history does not ipso facto demand we subscribe to Orthodoxy.
i highly disagree with this explanation