Is the Pope Infallible?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.พ. 2019
- You might have heard that the pope is infallible. Believe it or not, this is not true.
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Blog: goo.gl/QuB4ra
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Twitter: goo.gl/oQs6ck
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: goo.gl/xqkssG
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
Holy Name Province: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my book: goo.gl/dwT8Pq
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: goo.gl/eKnFJN
I remember my dad explaining it to me as a child, when St. Paul VI was pope: "The pope can't say the sky is green and the grass is blue. He can only declare what the Church has always taught, even if the people in old fashioned times didn't exactly understand it well enough to explain it. And it can *never* go against the Bible." The timing on this is something, though -- the day yo uploaded it, I came across a comment on instagram saying that Catholics believe the pope can "make up doctrine," and showed "proof" with a highlighted comment by Catholic Answers...which doesn't say the pope can make up his own doctrine, obviously.
Christ is risen
The word "always" can often be a trap.
Also worth noting, not everything the pope says is in that area of infallibility.
The pope could say vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, but unless he’s talking ex cathedra what he says is not infallible.
Besides we all know cookie dough is the best flavor ;P
What about when the Bible goes against itself?
I get it now:
Peccata = sin
Im-peccata = without sin
Impeccabl = sinless.
Hi, bro... I'm from New Delhi in india. I am watching all your videos. Keep up the good work...God bless you!
Bangalore here 📍
An Indian watching from UAE🙏
God bless you too
Kerala here
With every video, Br. Casey you strengthen my journey back to the faith. Bless you and your ministry and I will celebrate the day of your ordination.
The presenter is either ignorant or dishonest. The truth is that the RCC has no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840We dont need to oray to saints but we can
Very well researched and presented. You knocked the ball out of the park on this one. Keep up the good work.
Hi brother Cole, watch all videos and learning a lot. Keep up the good work
So blessed that I found your channel. Keep up the hard work!
Excellent presentation. I am able to use this in my World Religions class in a secular public school. Thank you for your scholarly and straightforward presentations.
Informative and great video!
You explained this to me very well. Thanks!
This is so important to understand, fr Casey! Many thanks! God bless you!
Napoleon Bonaparte:
**Laughs as he crowns himself Emperor**
Thank You Br Casey!
Thank you, Fr Casey!
Amen! My family and I are catholic converts. This doctrine was so hard to wrap my head around. Eventually it did make sense. This is a great video. A wonderful presentation of a complex issue. Thank you!
Thank you for explaining this Father!.
I had a hard time explaining this to others,
Now I can just point them to your video.
There's no way I can explain it that well!
Excellent explanation. Thanks very much.
Best Wishes from Bonnie Scotland !!!
This video helped me out immensely. I always understood the role of the Pope within our Catholic doctrine, but I’ve always found it to be quite difficult to articulate everything to non-Catholics. You did an excellent job explaining everything thoroughly - I appreciated this video tremendously. Thank you, Fr. Casey!
Nice one ,Praise the LORD
I’ve been watching your videos for hours ( I will save a long story for now but suffice it to say you have my attention) I’m requesting a side bar here would you be willing to do a video on a compare and contrast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin compared to the Eastern
understanding of The Dormition of the Theotokos?
This video is helpful. I’m a theology student pursuing a master’s degree. Because when I joined the Church I was catechized in a FSSP parish by other connections I’ve had connection with those who hold a Catholic identity but are not united to the Holy See. Stripping my nuance I’m referring to Sedavacantists. In my time of dialogue with them I find them to be truly kind hearted people of good will that have simply found themselves confused in a situation no one asked for. The primary point made by many sedavacantists is on this issue. Because post conciliator popes do not meet their frankly unreasonable standard there is discontinuity. I’m sure like me given the great faith of these people the situation is truly heartbreaking. Can you reply to me and give me what suggestions you may have in this situation?
Are you still pursuing your theological studies? Did you ever connect with Father Casey?
Thank you Bro. Casey. You rock
I'm a dedicated Protestant and I just subscribed.
+Breaking in the Habit..Yes..I was agreeing with you. I have learned this from another church who had titled men I listened to..and was mislead. Listening to people..we can always be mislead. I have learned it is best to Seek Jesus..Alone. If we belong to a church..we should still be very careful we are listening to Jesus First.
Thanks for the video. This misconception has led many to sin. Good to see someone within the church brave enough to talk about the Pope.
Wonderful explanation!
Hi, could I please get the transcript of this teaching? I'd like to translate it/generate subtitles in Finnish language... This video has already Spanish subtitles, also that would work as a basis for a translation.. I just need it in text format...
Well explained 🙌
Good explanation for these weird times
A wonderful explanation Brother for this present time, where even Catholics are confused as to what to make of certain statements by our current Pope.
Very clear (and reassuring!) explanation.
Thank you for this clear explanation; however, do you agree that, in History, particularly when the Holy See played a political role, his defenders (on the political side, so the "papists"), papal infaillibility was already implied, in his common and false meaning, as a political weapon ?
I fear you're backing up a little too far. Popes have been speaking with full knowledge of their infallibility since the earliest days of the church. The dogmatic definition given in Vatican I gave very precise limits to it, but it in no means invented the Idea for it to be later retroactively projected onto earlier popes. The word "infallible" was first applied to the pope by Patriarch John IV of Jerusalem in the 5th century, but we have descriptions of the idea from the second century through the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons. It also doesn't say that they need to declare the teaching infallible, only that it has to be by the full authority of their office. An ol' "And I mean it Stanley" should suffice. Every canonization, for instance, is an infallible declaration of the Dogmatic fact that the person in question is in heaven.
You are the honest one. Romanists have no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
Can you give me a source for the John IV quote?
Amazing explanation.
An excellent illustration of the subject.
In light of the difficulty and the impracticality of the "infallibility" teaching, I wonder if it would have been more beneficial if this position was never made into a doctrine. The Church already had its teaching magisterium established, so all matters of faith and truth would have been better understood and accepted through this office, instead of added papal authority on top. The fact that it has been practiced so rarely shows its deficiency, instead, it becomes a hurdle and stumbling block for Catholics everywhere. It constantly needs to be explained away. What do you think Br. Casey?
When Pope Pius IX defined the term Papal Infallibility he had to go against the desires of a bunch of Gallican opponents (mainly French and German bishops who maintained that all bishops are equal in primacy of jurisdiction to the Roman Pontiff). Oddly enough, they reasoned the same way as you do: it's not expedient to define such as thing as a dogma. But Pope Pius IX knew better than these proud prelates.
@@hYpNoXiDe Beloved, Jesus called Peter to be first among equals but not as a Supreme Pontiff, nor did Jesus create a transferable infallibility as claimed by Pius IX. There is absolutely no doubt about that (if you choose to believe the Bible).
The Rome-centric church became so corrupted by power and wealth that it began altering Apostolic ethos. Today, Pope Francis is mortally embarrassed by papal infallibility. He has criticized it indirectly several times. He has also officially dropped all the titles that suggest Infallibility, such as “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (“Vicario di Gesù Cristo”), Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, etc. That dogma has made the RC Church a laughing stock.
I am certain that no Pope will dare speak "ex cathedra" again!
But jokes aside, Pontifical infallibility is a deadly ecclesiastical poison. Among many ill effects, lets state only 5:
i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that RCs have a psychological block from attaining such depth of Christian expression mainly because of the RC ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in a man rather than in the Word of God.
ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many RC parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals.
iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when one man has all the answers?
iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" via a system led by a man who is chosen by a fallible conclave. That is why most converts to Christianity become evangelicals. RC faith is very often sterile ("immaculate", but no "conception"!!!
)
v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most RC clergy tell me in secret that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own informed conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible".
IN SUMMARY, PIUS XII WAS AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER! MOREOVER, NEITHER POPE FRANCIS NOR ANYONE ELSE HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET OUT OF THE INFALLIBILITY DEBACLE WITHOUT LOOSING FACE.
Wow thank you for this I have been wondering about this teaching for sometime. Especially with some of the things Pope Francis has been saying Lately.
Didn't the Vatican II council declare Mary was born with original sin going against what was defined about her immaculate conception in 1854 in the Vatican I? So what does that mean about the popes infallibility?
Hi brother, peace to you! What about the teachings of St. John Paul II in Humanea Vitae, for example? I'm quite sure that those teachings match the conditions you mentioned in the video. I think you're totally right when you say that there hasn't been any abuse of this kind of papal prerogative, but limit its use to one time seems a little bit too strict to my knowledge of the field.
Many thanks from Italy, God bless!
Hi Emiliiano. Do you mean the teachings of John Paul II *and* Humanae Vitae, because Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In the case of Humanae Vitae, it does not fit all three criteria because nowhere in the document does he invoke his full apostolic authority. Rather, as an encyclical (a medium level document of authority) he is clarifying a question with some general advice. If he intended it to be infallibly taught, he would have issued in in a different style of document, one with a lot more weight, and specifically said that he was teaching from his full authority.
John Paul II, on the other hand, had an interesting situation regarding the letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS. Some have believed that he was teaching infallibly regarding the ordination of only men, but others have refuted this. At this point, it's a bit unclear, which makes me believe that it is not infallibly taught.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Apologies brother, I got confused with the two names "Evangelium Vitae" and "Humanae Vitae". Take "Evangelium Vitae" n. 57 when the Pope writes "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral". Doesn't that count as an infallible teaching? A similar statement can be found, also, at point 62 with regard to abortion.
Maybe I'm getting a little bit confused also on the reiteration and confirmation of a concept previously believed or expressed by the Church and the faithful. In the case of "Ordination Sacerdotalis", the teaching regarding ordination of only men has been repeated many times before that document was written, and even recently by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith based on it (cfr. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ladaria-ferrer/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180529_caratteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html). Doesn't that count as infallible teaching either?
Thanks brother, may God richly bless you and your ministry!
It would, I guess, be infallible teaching if it weren't already dogmatic in nature. John Paul II isn't really teaching that killing is bad, he's reiterating what has already been identified as divine law: God said it first and we have accepted this for centuries.
@@BreakingInTheHabitWhat if the Pope has serious conflicts regarding Hell and ends up believing without-a-shadow-of-doubt that annihilation is correct?
You should make a video about the Px symbol and what it means to Catholics
The christogram?
Hey Fr. Casey, I'm pretty new to Catholicism, so I'm still learning church history. When was the last time the Pope issued an infallable teaching? My guess would be Humanae Vitea...but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks!
6:29 There has only ever been one infallible statement issued with the intention of being infallible.
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture.
The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority.
This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter).
The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture.
The Church merely discerned God's Word, guided by the Holy Spirit. And the Church that did the discernment was the Catholic Church, of which the Reformed Churches are the true heirs.
Research what the Church looked like in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the 1st and early 2nd century (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement I, Polycarp of Smyrna) and you will see it looks a lot more like Catholicism than 99% of Protestants or people who "don't follow religion, only Christ". Even if the books of the Bible were already mostly completed, these Fathers didn't have any kind of Bible, yet they stayed true to the faith by being taught personally by the Apostles.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
Also, yes obviously the Church did not write the Bible in 393 in Hippo, but that is when it was compiled. If you don't trust the church on anything else, then how can you trust them on compiling scripture, especially considering there is not set of books that the Apostles said should be included in the NT.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
So what if he does get it wrong while in declared "ex cathedra"? Do you throw away that whole principle? ...or just the principal?
May I suggest that you read Saint Justin Popovic writing on ecumenism and infallible.
can you talk more about Mary, and why we believe in her Immaculate Conception and Assumption?
Does anyone know why the bishops at Vatican I put forth the doctrine of infallibility? It apparently was not necessary for the first 18 centuries of the Church's existence and doctrine had been defined by council. What was the impetus for Vat I to define this?
Imagine br Casey as pope
maybe
oh no pls not
It seems that i am finding less reasons to stay Protestant, i am concerned
Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Please don’t stay Protestant.
Love from Germany ❤
You should do a video too on the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary! There are many sheeples out there who are clueless about that too! They think Our Lady was conceived just as miraculously as Jesus Christ was, or that she is somehow divine (outside of her Divine Motherhood of the Son of God).
I wasn't well-catechized in youth, but learned about the Immaculate Conception as an adult. And then a veteran English teacher argued with me, because she had gone through Catholic schools all her life and "learned" that Jesus is the Immaculate Conception. So many misconceptions abound!
By the way the immculate conception is an Islamic ideology very clear in the Coran in Sourat Mariam (Mary) perhaps the Infallible Pope got confused and get it from their
@@ghassanmina Complete nonsense!
@@francoisegregyi9527 what is the non sense the filioque controversy or the islamique idiology of the imaculate conception of the Vergin Mary?
@@ghassanmina First of all, do you really understand what the "Filioque" and "the Immaculate Conception" are about in the Catholic sense? It appears you don't! It's no good just throwing Catholic terms about and attributing one to Islam! Stop bring so childish or wasting your time being a troll!
My issue with pure papal infallibility is this, not but a few lines after Jesus ordained Peter the first pope, Satan actually entered Peter to attempt to act as a stumbling block. (Matt 16: 18-23)
Now if Satan enter St Peter, a man who witnessed first hand the miracles of Christ and was his most trusted apostle then how much more would this happen as we slowly approach the end times?
Especially with the positions Pope Francis has took on many things, we also have Pope Leo XIII’s vision took take heed of.
But Peter was not defining doctrine when Satan entered him
1 Timothy 3:15 Is talking about impeccability (or virtue) rather than infallibility
Only on matters of Faith and Morals.
Still the idea that another human being (saints,pops,priests) can erase sin seems ungodly to me this is my problem with the church im not a christian just a seeker-of truth
What about the Immaculate Conception? Pope Pius IX, in 1854? Dogma, Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. Fr. John Hardon S.J.
Yes, but the definition of papal infallibility was not promulgated until 1871. The Immaculate Conception is infallibly taught, but was done so without the understanding of infallibility as we have it today.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Yes. But I am just pointing this out. There are so many out there who say venomous things about the Pope. As a returning Catholic, it breaks my heart because I wasn't raised that way.
So then how do we understand the "infallibility" of fiducia supplicans
Can you clarify it more? Because the video is a bit ambiguous I got even more confused
Brilliant.
In this video Fr. Casey says that the Bishop of Rome has "always enjoyed" the Supreme Authority given to him by Christ and in another video he says that it was a "development over time." Come on Father, which one is it?
Br. Casey,
If the Pope was teaching or speaking on church doctrine or quoting scripture without his personal opinion on it,
Does it make it infallible?
In order for it to be infallible teaching, it must include all three of the criteria I mentioned.
@@BreakingInTheHabit,
I re-watched the video, I must have missed that, sorry.
Thank you for reply.
Blessings
The canon was closed in AD66, no more revelation. Even the apostles themselves knew they were not infallible, which is why they never privately interpreted the divine revelation they received.
Hey Fr Casey, am I right to say that when the Pope speaks infallibly he represents the unified voice of all the fellow bishops (apostolic successors) in faith and morals?
Yes, exactly. Not necessarily that there is 100% consensus, but he speaks with the bishops rather than against them.
@@BreakingInTheHabit A PETRINE SUPREME PONTIFF IS A ROMANIST INVENTION
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (ACTS 15)
The task of governing the Early Church fell to St. James. St. James the Just was the Patriarch of Jerusalem (the headquarters of the Early Church, later supplanted by Rome)
Because he was the Primate of the headquarters, James played 4 roles at that Council, viz:
i. Convener
ii. Host
iii. President and
iv. final Arbiter
In today's RCC, all these roles are played by a so-called Successor of Peter, whereas the historical Peter did not play any of these roles.
Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”.
No Romanist Cardinal/Primate of today's RCC would dare use such language in the presence of a Pope ("Supreme Pontiff & Head of the Universal Church")
CONCLUSION: Peter was never Pope
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
quote; Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”.
I don't see anything about an "Apostolic Decree of St. James" mentioned there? It is important to point out that the Greek word "krino" can also mean "I think it good" which would be more like someone's opinion on the matter. Regardless, verse 28 explains "For it has seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT AND TO US to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...."
-NO! Absolutely not. And besides that you forgot your light saber.
Then what is vatican 1and vacant 2 po ?
is the recent teaching about death penalty infallable?
TheGuardian. You should watch this video more carefully.
Why there was such strong resistance against that particular doctrine within the Church. Quite few bishops and cardinals were against it. Lord Acton, historian himself , was against it as there was no historical precedence to support such doctrine. Could you comment on that please? It's one of the few important obstacles preventing Orthodox Church from seeking unity with Rome, isn't it?
Douche Bagowicz. The orthodox will use any excuse to disobey our Lord when He prayed for his disciples to keep united.
@@marcmarc8524 you realise it's exactly the same position they hold?
Lord Acton was obviously uninformed because he obviously did not know about Pope Vigilius.
Thousands of denominations who follow biblical Christianity are far more positive in the divine economy than one humongous cult which is leading people away from genuine Christianity.
Papal infallibility (the basis for the enforced Romanist "unity") is extremely damaging to true Christian witness. Among many ill effects, lets state only five:
i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal John Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that Romanists have a psychological block from attaining such levels of Christian expression mainly because of the Romanist ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in an artificial mechanism rather than in the Word of God.
ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many Romanist parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. That is also why Pope Francis can ignore very valid appeals for him to be accountable.
iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when the Pope has all the answers?
As a rule RCs do not take Bible Study seriously.
iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" through a system led by a man who is elected by a fallible conclave. That is why the vast majority of converts to Christianity become evangelical Christians. Romanism is often a dead end ("Immaculate" but no "Conception").
v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most Romanists tell me in private that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible".
So is it more accurate to say the papacy, not the Pope is infallible?
If the pope was married he'd soon realise that he wasn't infallible
What do you mean, brother?
@@josepontaroli6989 It's a marriage joke.
No he would as a pope still be infallible, but as a man he would be doubly fallible and peccable.
Thank you Father. I try to make this clear to non Catholics because it's so often misunderstood and used against Catholics.
ok, did the Church (both eastern and western) until the great schism accept papal infallibility?
No, the Orthodox Church believes (rightly) that Papal Infallibility is a heresy. It is the single most important reason for the rejection of Rome by the Orthodox Church, which is the cradle of Christianity. Since Peter was never Bishop of Rome (the Bible calls Peter "Apostle to the Circumcised"), the Roman Catholics have built a great edifice based on absolutely nothing!
The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome). In order words the doctrine is universally rejected by Christians. That is why the present Pope has dropped the title "Vicar of Christ" and "Head of the Universal Church", etc. Pope Francis is so embarrassed by the infallibility nonsense.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
quote; The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome)
Give me one good reason why the Catholic Church should be concerned that infallibility is rejected by EVERY denomination?
The problem is that when men come up with a doctrine that contradicts biblical doctrine it is a false doctrine period , the council of Trent is men creating man's doctrine that in many ways contradictory to biblical doctrine , and no man today has apostolic authority, the last apostle was Paul and there are 12 seats in revelation for the apostles of Jesus Christ not 266
And yet the Catholic Church transferee the solemnity of the biblical Saturday sabbath to the first day of the week Sunday as a Sabbath. So pipes have and do change even biblical teachings and have had Catholic friends that are active in their church say “what leaves the lips of the pope is the same as God speaking”
From what I gather, the Holy Spirit helps the Pope retain Jesus’s original teachings, which is infallible. Any aspect that the Pope may embellish (i.e. make more strict/rigid than originally intended) is not necessary infallible. Am I correct?
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture.
The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority.
The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture.
This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter).
Nicely explained, but it avoids the main issue. As a Protestant friend explained, she well knows the strict limitations of infallibility, the problem is that the very mention of infallibility bestowed on a single person sounds uniquely arrogant, and brings the tradition and horrors of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings into the room. Papal authority might not be undemocratic, but with this ill-conceived doctrine, it sure as hell sounds like it. So people switch off to what they see as the cult of Catholicism. I see their point.
This is ground breaking from a Protestant
It seems to me that Catholics have a paradox on their hands concerning this issue. There was a time when the Popes (guided by the Holy Spirit) supported the original creed that claimed that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from the Father. Then Pope Benedict VIII changed the original creed and added the filioque and said that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father and Son. Doesn't this mean that the early popes were not guided by the Holy Spirit and were fallible?
I'll have to double-check, brother, but I think your assertion that papal infallibility was only used once - the Assumption - is wrong. If my memory of my own studies is correct, papal infallibility was also used tp declare the Immaculate Conception. That would be twice. The very rarely used point is well taken, though.
Go back to 6:43 and be careful to listen to what I'm actually saying. There has only been one instance when this was used with knowledge that it was being used. Others have fit the criteria and been retroactively accepted as infallible, but only the Assumption was promulgated after this doctrine. The Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, two decades before the definition of infallibility.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Good answer. 😀
And WHY did that take nearly *1900* years do U suppose? I know Catholic *theologians* still wrestling with *that* issue, actually...sigh.
I’m a Protestant; raised that way, but this is making a lot of sense.
The 1854, Immaculate Conception by Ineffabilis Deus is 'generally accepted' as being an ex-cathedra statement. Due to that, they had to define the Pope's infallibly and did so in 1870.
If you believe in the tradition (faith and tradition, right?) of the infallibility of the Pope's office, there are several and possibly more:
Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, Year 449
Letter of Pope Agatho, Year 680
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, Year 1336
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, Year 1653
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, Year 1794
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, Year 1854
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, Year 1950
No.
Benedict IX was pretty bad, but then there's John XII who may have been just as bad or worse, lol.
Hi! I’m currently studying the history of the Church, but I’m not Roman Catholic. Despite having been baptized, I left Rome years ago. Now I’m studying about this dogma (despite knowing it already) but looking at it carefully. Should we say that this dogma is a historical development rather than something that was always believed? For instance, Orthodox Christians resist to believe that the Roman Pontiff is infallible. Peter also made a mistake teaching that Christians should keep the law and follow Jesus, but Paul disagreed.
Historically talking, no one during the first millennia believed that the Patriarch of Rome held infallibility. Besides, if the Pope himself is infalible, why during the history of the Roman Church, there have been councils to solve problems when the Pope himself could proclaim dogmas?
I like your channel because it makes me feel like Rome might be true, but looking at the dogmas again carefully makes me doubt it.
Hope you could answer to me:)
Please do not capitulate to Roman apostasy. The Catholic Church was the Church before the Schism. Since then all we have are ecclesial communities (also called denominations). But if one had to HISTORICALLY identify a continuing church, it would be the Orthodox Church, since Christianity started in the East (Jerusalem) and not in the West (Rome). At the Jerusalem Council the Patriarch of Jerusalem (James the Just) was the host/convener/President/final arbiter. Peter only gave a speech. In any case historians have found no definitive evidence that Peter ever visited Rome and twice the Bible tells us that Peter was called to be the Apostle to the Circumcised (which excludes Rome).
The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. The Reformers condemned three key doctrines that were poison to Christian spirituality - Salvation by Works, Tradition set over Scripture and Papal Infallibility. The effect of rejecting the Reformation is dire. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture. The Reformation was God in action, do not be deceived.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
quote; The Catholic Church was the Church before the Schism. Since then all we have are ecclesial communities (also called denominations). But if one had to HISTORICALLY identify a continuing church, it would be the Orthodox Church, since Christianity started in the East (Jerusalem) and not in the West (Rome).
I would say the "continuing Church" is the Catholic Church, not Orthodox, since Orthodoxy came after the Schism. Christianity did start in Jerusalem, but at that time Jerusalem was not defined as an Eastern Church or Western Church, but THE original Church.
quote; At the Jerusalem Council the Patriarch of Jerusalem (James the Just) was the host/convener/President/final arbiter. Peter only gave a speech.
I know that is what you would like to believe, but Acts 15 doesn't explicitly support any of what you said about James. Remember, the issue at hand was whether or not Gentile converts should be circumcised according to the Mosaic practice in order to be saved. PETER stood up after much debating had taken place and made the declaration that from the early days God appointed him (PETER), that through his mouth those Gentiles who heard the Gospel preached by him (PETER) and believed, were saved by grace, which was evidenced by them being granted the Holy Spirit. Circumcision was not a requirement for salvation. So, we can see that it was PETER who gave answer to the critical question brought to the Jerusalem Church by Paul, Barnabas and others. "The whole assembly fell silent" (verse 12) showing the respect that the Church had for PETER's statement on the issue. Paul and Barnabas gave witness to PETER by describing the signs and wonders worked by God among the Gentiles.
James in verses 13-18 is merely giving additional support to what PETER said by invoking the OT prophets for their agreement on the matter. What James added in verse 19-20 was reiterating Church teaching among the Christian Jews, and requiring the Gentile converts to abide by it also.
quote; In any case historians have found no definitive evidence that Peter ever visited Rome and twice the Bible tells us that Peter was called to be the Apostle to the Circumcised (which excludes Rome).
So you have "some" historians that share your belief's? What about the other historians that would take issue with your beliefs? They don't count because they back up the Catholic Church beliefs maybe? If you knew the facts of ancient history, you would know that Rome had a significant population of Jews during the 1st century, it wasn't ALL Roman pagans.
I could cite many quotations from early church fathers about Peter being in Rome, but I'll just list names of some of them for brevity, such as Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius.
1 Pet. 5:13 says "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." Rome was sometimes referred to as "Babylon" as sort of a code word.
quote; It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture.
How absolutely absurd to say Christianity "produced" these people, as if they all came out of the Church. In reality, these enemies of mankind were spawned by Satan himself, in order to destroy Christianity and anyone who would not submit to their evil systems.
@@jzak5723 Are you joking, or do you actually believe that an unlettered Jewish fisherman who spoke no word of Latin and who was specifically called to by God to minister to the Circumcised somehow left the headquarters of the Apostolic Church only to materialize as the Bishop of the most anti-Semitic and cosmopolitan city in the world? And you also believe that if St. Peter was Bishop in Rome St. Paul would write a major Epistle to the Church of Rome without any reference at all to St. Peter?
GALATIANS CHAPTER 2: 6-9
"As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an Apostle to the Circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."
I] Verse 6 teaches that God has no infallible Apostle (no Cardinal today would dare say: "the Papacy added nothing to my message")
II] Verse 8 shows that Paul regarded himself as the equivalent of Peter in his own jurisdiction
III] Verse 9 shows that James' leadership at the first Council in Jerusalem was no accident. James is here again named first. Can you imagine a RC Cardinal coming up with this list in a solemn letter to his flock:
1. Cardinal Sarah
2. Pope Francis
3. Cardinal Bourke"???!!!!!)
CONCLUSION: St. Peter the First Pope is a nefarious invention of Romanism
No
I enjoyed the video. As a Protestant I would just have to ask "Then why even call it infallibility if that is not what is meant?"
It's exactly what it means. The problem is that people don't know what infallible means. They conflate that word with impeccable or inerrant.
@BreakingInTheHabit I'm not trying to be difficult, but Webster's has it as "incapable of error" , "not liable to mislead, deceive or disappoint" , and "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" . I understand you are leaning on the 3rd definition, but it seemed like even that took place in certain settings. Did I understand that correctly?
All teachings in all church's throughout Catholic Greek Orthodox Protestant etc etc have all erred from the saints of the Roman Catholic Church with Luther huss Calvin Wesley all never claimed they were infallible. The assumption of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary.before and after the virgin birth.
The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. The Reformers condemned three key doctrines that are poison to Christian spirituality - Salvation by Works, Tradition set over Scripture and Papal Infallibility. The effect of rejecting the Reformation is dire. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture.
In the divine economy of grace, the thousands of often acrimonious "Protestant" sects are more useful to God that the humongous anti-Church falsely called the Catholic Church.
Good explanation, but as you know, the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility.
6:02 Deus Vult God Wills It
Funny how much Catholic spin there is lately trying to explain how the pope’s recent decree isn’t really as big of a deal as it seems. The Catholic Church has been digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole since Vatican 2, and technically since 1054AD. Might just be a good time to recognize this and rejoin the main body of the 5 original churches that you left out of arrogance way back then. The church of the councils and of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox Church.
That explanation sounds like Catholics jumping through hoops to explain away and obviously flawed teaching. You teach the pope is infallible and then you say well that doesn't mean he's actually infallible and then you concoct some complicated argument that says he is infallible but he isn't infallible and it's just ridiculous.
Anda harus Mengerti dulu Apa yang dimaksud dengan Infalibilitas Paus Ex Cathedra?!
📌 Ajaran Yang Jelas Cacat!
Justru Ajaran Gereja Katolik tidak Cacat Teman! Kenapa Begitu? Ajaran itu yang berasal dari Rasa beriman dari banyak orang dalam pembicaraan bersama. Bukan Ajaran Personal, Bukan Niat-niat Pribadi!.
📌 Bapa Casey Mengarang!
Bapa Casey tidak Mengarang! Itu Pengajarannya bersama dengan Bapa-Bapa yang lain dengan Uskup-Uskup yang lain. Sekali lagi! Ajaran yang diajarkan Bapa Casey itu bukan Ajaran Personal!.
📌 Dia tidak bisa Salah Tetapi Dia bisa Salah itu Konyol!
Anda akan berkutat di lingkaran itu-itu saja. KeTidak Mungkin Salah Pengajaran itu selama Dia bersama dengan Kolegalitas nya Bersama dengan Uskup-Uskup lainnya. Dia bisa salah! INGAT! Paus adalah Manusia tetapi Anda bisa pelajari Apa yang dilakukan selama Hidupnya!
Itu Kenapa Gereja Katolik menekankan Unisitas. Kesatuan Dalam Keberagaman!
Watching from Goa, India.
The pop is the person who is impeccable man in the holl world and he is free from the sin god bless you pop francis and I love so much
Mohamed Samir you’re not listening to what he’s saying
So the pope has a switch, whether he chooses to speak in line with his position, that makes it infalliable and when he chooses to just speak for himself, then he is not infalliable?.Where in the bible, we can see that?.. Another one, you said that when the certain criteria are met, then its irreformable, again, where in the bible we can see that?.. the bible should be our final authority, it is the word of God and not just any doctrine instituted by a person. God bless brother
Scriptural basis: Matthew 16:16-20, John 20:22-23.
But we have to remember that the Bible is not the only source of truth. th-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/w-d-xo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit Matthew 16:16-20 Does not Give Peter the ultimate authority. Jesus is referring to himself as the Big Rock ( Petra in Greek), Peter's name in Greek is petros. Jesus refers to himself as the foundation and authority of church. even apostle Paul addressed Jesus as the rock (petra) in 1 Corinthians 10:4. John 20:23 on the other hand does not mean authority to forgive sins lies in the apostles, forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus, John 20:23 states that Jesus is sending the apostles by the help of the Holy spirit to proclaim the Good news that forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus. God bless
@@josephjr.balazo6440 that doesn’t make any sense for Jesus to tell himself he would hand the keys to himself, also Simon was referred to Peter signifying the important role he would play.
How about him condemning capital punishment and putting that in the catechism against scripture AND tradition. Or allowing adulterers to take communion, or homosexuals being blessed as a couple? He’s wrong. Papal infallibility is false.
He's a man. Need I say more.
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is 1, Immaculate Conception is 2. You mention only one, please advise...
As I said in the video, only one was promulgated AFTER the definition of papal infallibility during the first Vatican Council. There are other statements that are infallibly thought, but only one that came about after the doctrine was defined.
All humans are infallible
No no no no no
Save us the word salad and simply say that the pope is not infallible.
Thank you. Can you please show me in the Bible were the name
"Pope" is mentioned. By the way I am Catholic.
Carole: NOWHERE! :-(
Carole St.louis : NOWHERE! :-(
Carole St. louis Well, the answer to your question is simply: it’s not in the Bible. Just like the words Cheese Burger, Beef Steak, Kebab and Dumplings, aren’t found in the Bible as well. Yet we know that these items are what the Bible describes as ‘Daily Bread’ ‘Blessings’ ‘Meal’ ‘Feasts’ and ‘Food’. So in the same concept, the word ‘Pope’ refers to ‘Authority’ ‘Minister’ ‘Priest’ ‘Shepherd’ ‘Leader’ ‘Spiritual Father’ etc.
Also, the question you asked would fall into an example of ‘Scripture Alone’ or ‘Solo Scriptura’ as the Protestants call it. Hope this helped. ☺️
Where is the word 'trinity' mentioned in the Bible? Just because the literal word isn't there doesn't mean that the teaching isn't there.
Jesus made peter his first Pope... book of Matthew
he's not that is why he asks us to pray for him...
Which Pope? The Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Catholic Pope of Rome (there should also be an Orthodox Pope of Rome)? No, no one bishop is infallible; the entire Church is infallible.