I love how Protestants say, "oh the papacy can't be tracked back to the apostles." Then they find out it does....then they move the goal post, "oh, well there wasn't just one bishop."
The thought that there was an early confederacy of Bishops that organized into a hierarchical structure makes a lot more sense than the traditional teaching of clear apostolic succession directly from the Apostle Peter. Good conversation
Los Angeles has probably the largest Catholic archdiocese, therefore they need more than one bishop. Hence, they also have several auxiliary bishops within the archdiocese.
Acts Chapter 1. Peter said they needed to replace Judas Iscariot. The 11 apostles and possibly other disciples helped choose candidates. Then they cast lots to select Matthias. Later Paul and Barnabus goes to Jerusalem to answer the circumcision question in Chapter 15. Apostles and Presbyters meet, debate and then decided to send Paul, Barnabus, Judas and Silas to Antioch with instructions on behalf of the Apostles. Paul starts to show his own authority more frequently in Chapter 19. He made up his mind to go back to Jerusalem and sent disciples to Macedonia. Later Paul shows his authority over Titus in the Book of Titus by putting Titus in charge of appointing Presbyters in Crete and telling Titus he will be replaced later.
Sorry to revive this old post. In case you are still curious, it depends. There was no settled method but usually it involved an apostle directly appointing by "laying hands on" the candidate. After the last Apostle died, it became by appointment, as needed, but if there was a clear communication route to the immediate superior, then the superior had to be consulted. Presbyters was more casual. Any presbyter could ordain anyone, at their discretion. This was banned in the Council of Trent after fraudulent priests started selling indulgences and stuff. Nowadays it's a little more standardized to avoid abuse or the appointment before proper instruction. Presbyters can be appointed by the local bishop who must certify the satisfactory completion of seminary, orthodox views, and a good character. Bishops can only be appointed by the Pope (in the Roman Catholic Church) or the Patriarch (in sui iuris Catholic Churches). Exception where communication is cut off, in that case a bishop can be assigned temporarily by a neighbor bishop.
There is no evidence in Clement of any particular authority in the Church of Rome other than the strength and truth of Clement's exhortation. Even today, it is not uncommon for bishops of the Orthodox Church to write each other to observe the proper canonical order, as Clement does.
Did I miss something? Mr. Hahn seems to put forth an inference (Clement was likely the leader) based on an argument from silence (Clement & the Corinthians don't state there is or is not a singular head of the worldwide church). He also briefly touches on the idea of Monepiscopacy, which to my best understanding, describes a concept/practice of church government at local & regional levels - something of a practical "this is how we do what we do", which does not appear to necessarily corroborate the assertion that "There is one head bishop in Rome who is literally Christ's appointed representative on earth who rules over all who are in the faith and has the power to grant or refuse admittance into Heaven, etc... etc..." Ultimately, he leans on human traditions for his argument, which Protestants will continue to insist is one of their primary objections - which is "How does the Holy Scripture clearly teach this as a core doctrine?"
Appealing to an authority you have is not necessarily flexing or inflating your own ego if indeed that authority is valid. After all, doesn't Paul appeal to his authority as an apostle? That being said, I'm still searching for a good Catholic answer to the objection that Peter doesn't appeal to papal authority. Any of you fellas have anything that could help me out?
I agree, I have been listening to this specific line of questions and answers, as I have been following Cameron for a while now, but I find these answers the least compelling. It strikes me as begging the question. “The many bishops of Rome weren’t claiming to be from lineage of Peter.” Yet you would have to already assume there was such a thing as a direct line. You wouldn’t expect people who had no concept of a papacy to claim to be such. And on the former video that the Bishops didn’t need to use their power because there were kings and systems they used to further their influence. Once that started to go away they had to make their “authority” more clear so that they could still have power to grow the church. One could equally make the claim that they made it all up in order to keep their power. I’m not bashing anyone, just stating what I feel is as some holes in their arguments. Maybe they can re-craft them to speak to more than just already believing Catholics.
@Nidemos yeah, I like Ortlund. One of the few protestants that are interested in church history (unfortunately). But I'm not looking for that, I'm looking for catholic responses.
@Jack Hummell wasn't Peter the apostle to the Jews? How can he be apostle to the Jews and be the bishop of Rome at the same time? Also, I'm not convinced of the argument for the papacy from scripture. All of the scriptures used can be interpreted in better ways than to say it teaches papacy
Thing's are a little confusing right now the order of operation got messed up on September the 11th, 2001. Close to normalcy now not quite but close about 90%.
Peter is the only person in the NT who’s name was changed thereby his destiny. St Paul already had the Roman name Paul before his conversions. Barnabas was a nickname
Every time there is a change in name, there is a change in the person’s status. But that’s not all, Simons name change to Peter is even somewhat prophesied in the OT.
Arrangements for the times to come Excerpt from the book remedies by Marie Julie Jahenny published by resiac, and messages from Saint Michael the Archangel to Luz de Maria (Revelaciones Marianas FR) During this great tribulation, let us pray, remain calm and confidently use the protections given by the Lord Everyone can prepare according to their condition, their means, and their possibilities: - Agnus Dei, statues and images of Saints, Saints and Holy Angels -Candles, salt, olive oil, water, and Sacramentals: crosses, medals, rosaries... Everything blesses. - Wool blankets (minus 40° in some places and at an unusual time of year) - Medicines (those in current use and those from Heaven such as the oil of the good Samaritan, the oil of Saint Michael the Archangel, equinacea, hawthorn, nettle, etc.) Black plastic, adhesive PVC tapes, door wedges (to protect your windows or others) Mosquito nets (pref. aluminum) Masks, flashlights, first aid kit There will be no more electricity or gas, plan accordingly. Foodstuffs and others (salt, olive oil, sugar, honey, legumes, herbal teas, etc.) Food supplements (vitamins, equinaceae, nettles) Clothing, food and various things for everyone (babies, animals, religious objects, scapulars, prayer books, children's school notebooks, etc.) Various tools and products (sewing, gardening, hygiene, work of all kinds) Books for priests (see the fssp website for example) God Himself will supply our needs. You will always have enough but not too much, you will not need money, the current currency will no longer exist.
@@tafazzi-on-discord It's about to be non-material money (i think it's called cryptomoney or something like that), as i understand it, so physical money will have no more value. And if there is nothing we can buy (if there is no food, tools, etc), money have no longer value too, since you have what to pay, but nothing to buy... It's in this sense i understand it.
Technically, you can't make a logical argument from ignorance, and making a historical argument from silence is weak at best. What Clement did not say cannot make a positive case against something, like primacy.
Peter, the first Bishop of Antioch. I am sorry Catholics, but at best you are one 5th of the True Church as you're 1 bishop out of the Pentarchy (granted the first amoungst equals), but you have to return to the 4 that remained Orthodox; to proper monastism, the original creed, proper fasting and no clown masses.
Yes he did Antioch, but St Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, pointed St Linus (2nd pope) directly his successor, and died in martyrdom. So don't come with sassy "I am sorry Catholics" while you pretend the bits of History (and the Holy Tradition) that you don't are not, kinda like protestants do, to be in the schematic church (That enter in shcism several times with the pope, always comeing back and recognising him, before the great one that lastes until today).
No point in choosing to like or dislike this point of view of history. If people are willing to die for their faith, I can’t imagine GOD the Father/Son/Holy Spirit being displeased and angry. But I’m not GOD and His thoughts and ways are NOT like ours. In the End, we’ll all find out who was right and who missed the mark as far as forgiveness of sins and life, not death, with the Eternal King.
I am no longer Catholic because I was mentally abused by local priest and laity. The Sisters of The Immaculate Heart of Mary said I had been a big contribution to their building renovation here and they missed me after years of service to their Projects for the good of the unborn. I have become a hermit now, catching up on Bible study and praying for my enemies as Jesus directed in Matthew 5:44. . . There are other teachings of Jesus that poor souls have forgotten and now they are confined to arguing about how many Bishops of Rome there are or were. Sad.
@@darkjedi0001 Amen Brother Andrew! The Roman Church tried to destroy my Faith in the Real Jesus by distracting me with idolatry and vain repetitive works that were a waste of precious time here on earth. I certainly took a stumble, but Jesus helped me get up on my feet again and move away from error and towards Truth which is Love ❤️
@@oceanbeach5990 I am a Roman Catholic. Just as Jesus was betrayed by Judas sometimes we are betrayed by Priests, Bishops or other Catholics. If you are offended by an official church teaching that is one type of problem. If you have a bad priest teaching falsely or being mentally abusive that is another type of problem and I would recommend speaking to the Bishop or another Priest about it.
@@oceanbeach5990 The Roman Church requires Mass. The goal is to find Jesus, follow his teachings as closely as possible and be welcomed into Heaven. The Church only Worships the Triune God. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We ask Saints for their prayers and help to follow Jesus. God gave us Jesus in human form to save us and help us relate to him. He also gives us Mary, Joseph, Bishops, Priests and Saints to help as well.
@@estebanmoeller It’s just the land that the church was on ,established 2000 years ago for some reason it’s considered a country in its own right. The Pope the ruler.
@@estebanmoeller That’s the reason there has to be great prudence when picking a Pope the holiest man might not have skills to manage the world wide church as well as the Curia the popes civil servants. .The Conclave ( picking a Pope is a very grave and serious matter.The Pope is the head of state to give the church autonomy in Italy .As far as I know the Vatican is only custodian to the art treasures they belong to Italy’s history and culture.
It's pretty clear Peter NEVER went to Rome, and it's even doubtful he died there. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles. Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect. Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome. In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him. In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point. In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him. In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse. The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and Catholics say Babylon is Rome, but we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities. There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. If you read about the archaeological excavations you find out that they essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any. Some people also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed as there are issues with additions and translations. There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome. It's more likely that Paul was.
You are Protestant, and thou dost protest too much, that is the way the devil operates. Your aim is to disprove the Catholic Church, thousands have gone before you. You could do well to look into the history of Martin Luther and the reason he gave up his priesthood was not his disagreement with the Church, as much as his indulgence in the sins of the flesh!
Why are you still looking to Hahn when he was shown to be dishonest when he claimed (1) Acts 1:26 shows they drew lots by "Peter's initiative" when it doesn't (2) Acts 1:21-26 shows the necessity of succession despite the fact that the occupants had to be drawn from living witnesses (v21-22)? Who cares about bishops of Rome and the papacy when Peter was married, never went to Rome or wrote to Rome (according to scripture) and never preached to gentiles except Cornelius who was a synagogue attendee?
@@Hillbilly_Papist yes Peter was one of the apostles and he had a leading role in the early church. However Hahn wants to establish the inception of the papacy in Acts and to do so he exaggerates the evidence by (1) claiming lots were drawn at 'peters initiative ' which is false. It just says, "and they drew lots for them". Now, maybe Peter suggested lots or maybe John did or maybe Matthias did. Who knows but it certainly doesn't say Peter did. Not only that but the lots play down the role of the disciples inc Peter by making the decision God's. Peter didn't appeal to his own authority to choose a successor (2) Matthias was chosen because *he was a witness of the resurrection and had accompanied the disciples since John the Baptist* so papal succession is not in view here. Hahn is guilty of twisting scripture to suit his theological preferences
@@stephenglasse9756 I have to agree. It's pretty clear Peter NEVER went to Rome, and it's even doubtful he died there. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles. Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect. Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome. In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him. In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point. In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him. In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse. The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and Catholics say Babylon is Rome, but we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities. There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. If you read about the archaeological excavations you find out that they essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any. Some people also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed as there are issues with additions and translations. There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome. It's more likely that Paul was.
@@bobdurango2417 yes I pretty much agree with all of that though I personally think 'Babylon'refers to the real Babylon on the Euphrates. There was a large Jewish community there at the time (the Babylonian Talmud derived from there) so it would make some sense for the 'apostle to the circumcision ' Peter to go there. With the exception of Babylon there's no evidence from the NT that Peter ever left the land of Israel and even if he did the fact that scripture doesn't make a point about it AND instead emphasizes his role in Israel and to the Jews is strong evidence against petrine papal doctrine
@@stephenglasse9756 Why are the 12 named so frequently? Why did Peter immediately declare a need for a replacement for Judas? Why didn't Jesus simply replace Judas after he rose from the dead? Why did Paul and Barnabus feel the need to return to Jerusalem to decide on circumcision?
Hahn is brilliant yet respectful I.n response
A sane voice ...nice to hear.
"Just because there is a center doesn't mean there is no circle" 😎
Way above my intellect, have no idea what this means.
I love how Protestants say, "oh the papacy can't be tracked back to the apostles." Then they find out it does....then they move the goal post, "oh, well there wasn't just one bishop."
It moves to the silly season when they are clinging to anything to prove their point. You've got to give it to him because he righted his stance.
Well, Cameron converted to Catholicism
The thought that there was an early confederacy of Bishops that organized into a hierarchical structure makes a lot more sense than the traditional teaching of clear apostolic succession directly from the Apostle Peter. Good conversation
Fortescue’s “the Early Papacy” is a good resource for this topic
It's easy to say the daily rosary and to wear the brown scapular.. thankyou Our Lady and Jesus ❤️❤️
Los Angeles has probably the largest Catholic archdiocese, therefore they need more than one bishop. Hence, they also have several auxiliary bishops within the archdiocese.
I have a question: how were Bishops appointed during the first few centuries?
Acts Chapter 1. Peter said they needed to replace Judas Iscariot. The 11 apostles and possibly other disciples helped choose candidates. Then they cast lots to select Matthias.
Later Paul and Barnabus goes to Jerusalem to answer the circumcision question in Chapter 15. Apostles and Presbyters meet, debate and then decided to send Paul, Barnabus, Judas and Silas to Antioch with instructions on behalf of the Apostles.
Paul starts to show his own authority more frequently in Chapter 19. He made up his mind to go back to Jerusalem and sent disciples to Macedonia.
Later Paul shows his authority over Titus in the Book of Titus by putting Titus in charge of appointing Presbyters in Crete and telling Titus he will be replaced later.
Sorry to revive this old post. In case you are still curious, it depends. There was no settled method but usually it involved an apostle directly appointing by "laying hands on" the candidate. After the last Apostle died, it became by appointment, as needed, but if there was a clear communication route to the immediate superior, then the superior had to be consulted.
Presbyters was more casual. Any presbyter could ordain anyone, at their discretion. This was banned in the Council of Trent after fraudulent priests started selling indulgences and stuff.
Nowadays it's a little more standardized to avoid abuse or the appointment before proper instruction. Presbyters can be appointed by the local bishop who must certify the satisfactory completion of seminary, orthodox views, and a good character.
Bishops can only be appointed by the Pope (in the Roman Catholic Church) or the Patriarch (in sui iuris Catholic Churches). Exception where communication is cut off, in that case a bishop can be assigned temporarily by a neighbor bishop.
There is no evidence in Clement of any particular authority in the Church of Rome other than the strength and truth of Clement's exhortation. Even today, it is not uncommon for bishops of the Orthodox Church to write each other to observe the proper canonical order, as Clement does.
But you will find it in St. Irenaeus and in St. Ignatius.
God bless
In a way I could see this being used as an argument for Orthodoxy. Anyone else pick up on this?
Hail Mary Most Pure Conceived Without Sin
Did I miss something? Mr. Hahn seems to put forth an inference (Clement was likely the leader) based on an argument from silence (Clement & the Corinthians don't state there is or is not a singular head of the worldwide church). He also briefly touches on the idea of Monepiscopacy, which to my best understanding, describes a concept/practice of church government at local & regional levels - something of a practical "this is how we do what we do", which does not appear to necessarily corroborate the assertion that "There is one head bishop in Rome who is literally Christ's appointed representative on earth who rules over all who are in the faith and has the power to grant or refuse admittance into Heaven, etc... etc..." Ultimately, he leans on human traditions for his argument, which Protestants will continue to insist is one of their primary objections - which is "How does the Holy Scripture clearly teach this as a core doctrine?"
If Peter was the first Pope, what was Paul and what does the historical record say?
Appealing to an authority you have is not necessarily flexing or inflating your own ego if indeed that authority is valid. After all, doesn't Paul appeal to his authority as an apostle?
That being said, I'm still searching for a good Catholic answer to the objection that Peter doesn't appeal to papal authority. Any of you fellas have anything that could help me out?
I agree, I have been listening to this specific line of questions and answers, as I have been following Cameron for a while now, but I find these answers the least compelling. It strikes me as begging the question. “The many bishops of Rome weren’t claiming to be from lineage of Peter.” Yet you would have to already assume there was such a thing as a direct line. You wouldn’t expect people who had no concept of a papacy to claim to be such.
And on the former video that the Bishops didn’t need to use their power because there were kings and systems they used to further their influence. Once that started to go away they had to make their “authority” more clear so that they could still have power to grow the church. One could equally make the claim that they made it all up in order to keep their power.
I’m not bashing anyone, just stating what I feel is as some holes in their arguments. Maybe they can re-craft them to speak to more than just already believing Catholics.
@Nidemos yeah, I like Ortlund. One of the few protestants that are interested in church history (unfortunately). But I'm not looking for that, I'm looking for catholic responses.
@Jack Hummell wasn't Peter the apostle to the Jews? How can he be apostle to the Jews and be the bishop of Rome at the same time? Also, I'm not convinced of the argument for the papacy from scripture. All of the scriptures used can be interpreted in better ways than to say it teaches papacy
Why would you expect Peter to do such an arrogant thing? You are searching for what? Typical, in that you cannot see the tree for the forest.
@@damerkharmawphlang4196 there were Jewish communities in Rome
Thing's are a little confusing right now the order of operation got messed up on September the 11th, 2001. Close to normalcy now not quite but close about 90%.
Peter is the only person in the NT who’s name was changed thereby his destiny. St Paul already had the Roman name Paul before his conversions. Barnabas was a nickname
th-cam.com/video/QxnYt9Q3YtI/w-d-xo.html
Every time there is a change in name, there is a change in the person’s status. But that’s not all, Simons name change to Peter is even somewhat prophesied in the OT.
@@your_catholic_guy3604 I didn't know that interesting
Didn't answer my question about that, there is long stretch before the Church at Rome became the number 1 church.
Interesting.
True
@@donalenright6246 Tiz now.
I don’t do drugs including alcohol
That one you know :)
Arrangements for the times to come
Excerpt from the book remedies by Marie Julie Jahenny published by resiac, and messages from Saint Michael the Archangel to Luz de Maria (Revelaciones Marianas FR)
During this great tribulation, let us pray, remain calm and confidently use the protections given by the Lord
Everyone can prepare according to their condition, their means, and their possibilities:
- Agnus Dei, statues and images of Saints, Saints and Holy Angels
-Candles, salt, olive oil, water, and Sacramentals: crosses, medals, rosaries... Everything blesses.
- Wool blankets (minus 40° in some places and at an unusual time of year)
- Medicines (those in current use and those from Heaven such as the oil of the good Samaritan, the oil of Saint Michael the Archangel, equinacea, hawthorn, nettle, etc.)
Black plastic, adhesive PVC tapes, door wedges (to protect your windows or others)
Mosquito nets (pref. aluminum)
Masks, flashlights, first aid kit
There will be no more electricity or gas, plan accordingly.
Foodstuffs and others (salt, olive oil, sugar, honey, legumes, herbal teas, etc.)
Food supplements (vitamins, equinaceae, nettles)
Clothing, food and various things for everyone (babies, animals, religious objects, scapulars, prayer books, children's school notebooks, etc.)
Various tools and products (sewing, gardening, hygiene, work of all kinds)
Books for priests (see the fssp website for example)
God Himself will supply our needs.
You will always have enough but not too much, you will not need money, the current currency will no longer exist.
Cap alert
@@tafazzi-on-discord What does Cap mean?
@@angeliquebreux6466 That it's not true. Our currency won't lose its value
@@tafazzi-on-discord It's about to be non-material money (i think it's called cryptomoney or something like that), as i understand it, so physical money will have no more value. And if there is nothing we can buy (if there is no food, tools, etc), money have no longer value too, since you have what to pay, but nothing to buy... It's in this sense i understand it.
@@tafazzi-on-discord it already has it seems.
Technically, you can't make a logical argument from ignorance, and making a historical argument from silence is weak at best. What Clement did not say cannot make a positive case against something, like primacy.
Peter, the first Bishop of Antioch. I am sorry Catholics, but at best you are one 5th of the True Church as you're 1 bishop out of the Pentarchy (granted the first amoungst equals), but you have to return to the 4 that remained Orthodox; to proper monastism, the original creed, proper fasting and no clown masses.
Yes he did Antioch, but St Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, pointed St Linus (2nd pope) directly his successor, and died in martyrdom.
So don't come with sassy "I am sorry Catholics" while you pretend the bits of History (and the Holy Tradition) that you don't are not, kinda like protestants do, to be in the schematic church (That enter in shcism several times with the pope, always comeing back and recognising him, before the great one that lastes until today).
No point in choosing to like or dislike this point of view of history. If people are willing to die for their faith, I can’t imagine GOD the Father/Son/Holy Spirit being displeased and angry. But I’m not GOD and His thoughts and ways are NOT like ours. In the End, we’ll all find out who was right and who missed the mark as far as forgiveness of sins and life, not death, with the Eternal King.
I am no longer Catholic because I was mentally abused by local priest and laity. The Sisters of The Immaculate Heart of Mary said I had been a big contribution to their building renovation here and they missed me after years of service to their Projects for the good of the unborn. I have become a hermit now, catching up on Bible study and praying for my enemies as Jesus directed in Matthew 5:44. . . There are other teachings of Jesus that poor souls have forgotten and now they are confined to arguing about how many Bishops of Rome there are or were. Sad.
I hope that you follow the way and the truth. Don't let a Judas Iscariot turn you away.
@@darkjedi0001 Amen Brother Andrew! The Roman Church tried to destroy my Faith in the Real Jesus by distracting me with idolatry and vain repetitive works that were a waste of precious time here on earth. I certainly took a stumble, but Jesus helped me get up on my feet again and move away from error and towards Truth which is Love ❤️
@@oceanbeach5990 I am a Roman Catholic. Just as Jesus was betrayed by Judas sometimes we are betrayed by Priests, Bishops or other Catholics. If you are offended by an official church teaching that is one type of problem. If you have a bad priest teaching falsely or being mentally abusive that is another type of problem and I would recommend speaking to the Bishop or another Priest about it.
@@oceanbeach5990 The Roman Church requires Mass. The goal is to find Jesus, follow his teachings as closely as possible and be welcomed into Heaven. The Church only Worships the Triune God. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
We ask Saints for their prayers and help to follow Jesus.
God gave us Jesus in human form to save us and help us relate to him. He also gives us Mary, Joseph, Bishops, Priests and Saints to help as well.
@@darkjedi0001 Thanks for the requirements-I’ll just take The Simple Way❤️
Why is the pope a head of state
Because the Vatican is the smallest country in the world . They have an ambassador in other countries called a Nuncio.
@@carolinenorman6141 why does the church have a country
@@estebanmoeller It’s just the land that the church was on ,established 2000 years ago for some reason it’s considered a country in its own right. The Pope the ruler.
@@carolinenorman6141 why is a spiritual leader a temporal ruler
@@estebanmoeller That’s the reason there has to be great prudence when picking a Pope the holiest man might not have skills to manage the world wide church as well as the Curia the popes civil servants. .The Conclave ( picking a Pope is a very grave and serious matter.The Pope is the head of state to give the church autonomy in Italy .As far as I know the Vatican is only custodian to the art treasures they belong to Italy’s history and culture.
0.3333% of population??
Something happened to a chromosome maybe????
It's pretty clear Peter NEVER went to Rome, and it's even doubtful he died there. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles.
Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect.
Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome.
In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him.
In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point.
In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him.
In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse.
The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and Catholics say Babylon is Rome, but we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities.
There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. If you read about the archaeological excavations you find out that they essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any.
Some people also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed as there are issues with additions and translations.
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome. It's more likely that Paul was.
Sure
There were jews spread all over the mediterranean countries, Rome did have jews, to say Peter would only go to Israel is silly.
You are Protestant, and thou dost protest too much, that is the way the devil operates. Your aim is to disprove the Catholic Church, thousands have gone before you. You could do well to look into the history of Martin Luther and the reason he gave up his priesthood was not his disagreement with the Church, as much as his indulgence in the sins of the flesh!
Why are you still looking to Hahn when he was shown to be dishonest when he claimed (1) Acts 1:26 shows they drew lots by "Peter's initiative" when it doesn't (2) Acts 1:21-26 shows the necessity of succession despite the fact that the occupants had to be drawn from living witnesses (v21-22)?
Who cares about bishops of Rome and the papacy when Peter was married, never went to Rome or wrote to Rome (according to scripture) and never preached to gentiles except Cornelius who was a synagogue attendee?
go back to Acts 1:15. it leads into 1: 21.
@@Hillbilly_Papist yes Peter was one of the apostles and he had a leading role in the early church. However Hahn wants to establish the inception of the papacy in Acts and to do so he exaggerates the evidence by (1) claiming lots were drawn at 'peters initiative ' which is false. It just says, "and they drew lots for them". Now, maybe Peter suggested lots or maybe John did or maybe Matthias did. Who knows but it certainly doesn't say Peter did. Not only that but the lots play down the role of the disciples inc Peter by making the decision God's. Peter didn't appeal to his own authority to choose a successor (2) Matthias was chosen because *he was a witness of the resurrection and had accompanied the disciples since John the Baptist* so papal succession is not in view here. Hahn is guilty of twisting scripture to suit his theological preferences
@@stephenglasse9756 I have to agree. It's pretty clear Peter NEVER went to Rome, and it's even doubtful he died there. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles.
Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect.
Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome.
In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him.
In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point.
In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him.
In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse.
The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and Catholics say Babylon is Rome, but we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities.
There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. If you read about the archaeological excavations you find out that they essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any.
Some people also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed as there are issues with additions and translations.
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome. It's more likely that Paul was.
@@bobdurango2417 yes I pretty much agree with all of that though I personally think 'Babylon'refers to the real Babylon on the Euphrates. There was a large Jewish community there at the time (the Babylonian Talmud derived from there) so it would make some sense for the 'apostle to the circumcision ' Peter to go there.
With the exception of Babylon there's no evidence from the NT that Peter ever left the land of Israel and even if he did the fact that scripture doesn't make a point about it AND instead emphasizes his role in Israel and to the Jews is strong evidence against petrine papal doctrine
@@stephenglasse9756 Why are the 12 named so frequently? Why did Peter immediately declare a need for a replacement for Judas? Why didn't Jesus simply replace Judas after he rose from the dead? Why did Paul and Barnabus feel the need to return to Jerusalem to decide on circumcision?