Scott Hahn on The Head of the Church 

Amen❣️🙏

It is always right to submit to correction, in all humility. However, I think that Scott Hahn was correct the first time. Jesus Christ alone is the Head of the Church. The Bishop of Rome does have some charisms, however, he could not, in any sense, be said to be, in his own person “The Head of the Church” - if for no other reason than that, when there is no Pope, there is no “Head of the Church”. That cannot possibly be right. Within the confines of the Vatican City State, the Pope has absolute authority as Sovereign ruler of that small territory. However, outside his own sovereign dominions, that autocratic and absolute authority does not extend.

Truly grateful to God for your witness. Thank God I had the grace of listening to you decades ago...You have been a strong encouragement in my journey God bless you and yours, sir

What did you read or listen to that did this for you of Dr Hahn’s?

​@@alicelkindseth295 The first book in my little library of his books from many moons ago! 'The Lambs Supper' - highly recommend if you haven't read it before :)

Thank you! I will put it on my Christmas list!!

​@@alicelkindseth295 Rome Sweet Home also made me not "afraid" of being Catholic.

Im context you said nothing wrong I am disappointed with your retraction

@@bellottibellotti9185I hope you get the opportunity to listen again to his “comment” on his original comment. It is meritorious❤

@@patriciagrenier9082 I'd like to see it again can you help me find it

quote---your obvious love for Jesus and the Church he established. .. unquote Then WHY is it NOT mentioned in the Bible?????

You’re right! Also him signing off on “Credo” book by Schneider which goes against a few of our Catholic Church’s teachings

A bit harsh on the average Protestant who is protected, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, by the kind and Christian doctrine of “invincible ignorance”. That is to say, it is not their fault that they were born and educated in ignorance of the truths of the Catholic Faith and the Church considers, in charity, that, if they did know and understand everything correctly, that they would probably wish to become Catholics.

Thursday should be more careful. He tends toward sensationalism.

Including this pope promoting scandal.❤

Expel the pope’s mess👎👎👎

Who is the one particular prelate you are talking about?

​@@ndumferdy2545Nice try.

No misunderstanding. If that’s all he said he wouldn’t have gotten any criticism. He went further and said to say the the Pope is the head of the Church is heretical. That was the issue. He is very humble to have reversed himself.

I stumbled across a recent article about an archeology find in Jerusalem. “Asher Al Habayit”. Look that one up and the Pope becomes very clear.

In addition, isnt it illogical, and can I say heretical, to imply that the Pope, human that he is, is the head not only of the Church Militant, but also of the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering, which only our Lord Jesus Christ, the God that He is, can possibly head?

God have mercy on my soul if I am being heretical.

You are correct. Jesus Christ alone is Head of the Church. What Scott Hahn is trying to argue is that the Bishop of Rome, given particular charisms by Our Lord, in particular, that of “confirming the brethren” shares in the Headship of Christ and, for that reason, might also be properly be described as “Head” of the Church. I am not able to agree with that. All Bishops of the Catholic Church, acting together, in an Ecumenical Council of the Church, share in the teaching authority of Our Lord and therefore, in some way, also share in his headship of the Church. However, Councils come and go and Bishops of Rome come and go. There was a period at one time when there was no Bishop of Rome for as long as three years. Who was “Head” of the Church during this period? Was Our Lord Head in person for those three years, being subsequently ousted on the appointment of the next Bishop of Rome? Pope Francis has refused the titles of “Vicar of Christ”and of “Pontifex Maximus” since these are grand titles which go beyond his particular charism, as Bishop of Rome that of “confirming the brethren”. Pope John XXIII made it clear that he did not believe in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, at least as far as he himself was concerned. He stated, specifically, on being asked about this doctrine “Well, I can assure you that I shall never teach infallibly. As I understand the doctrine, I could only teach infallibility if I specifically stated that I was teaching infallibly - and that I shall never do.” In 1870, the Archbishop of Paris refused to agree to the dogma and many of the American Bishops stated openly that they considered the proposed dogma to be blasphemous. It has never, in fact, ever been used.

@@tonymole7396 Thank you for clarifying that and for the other information you stated that is news to me. I'm relieved to hear that the term "infallibility" is no longer in use. I personally do not agree with applying that term to a particular person including a Pope, who is a weak human being prone to error and sin, just like St. Peter himself. If theres anything that needs to be corrected or removed completely from the Church teaching, i believe it's the "infallibility of the Pope" which for me is heretical. Wouldnt it be more true to form to say that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible on the basis that the truths and teachings it has established are inspired and or directed by the Holy Spirit. This is based on my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Magisterium is a body composed of the Order of Bishop which includes the Pope as the Leader.

What are the "errors and extreme positions that goes against Magisterium" to which you refer?

@@CatsHeartbeat How about for a start the ones where he explicitly says he is rejecting magisterial statements found in the catechism etc. His accusations of papal error are also technically incorrect. His audacious redefinition of schism to suit the positions of his friends in the SSPX (to whom he seems to want to draw ever closer) is very dangerous. What he says about human dignity and about Judaism are at odds with the texts of Vatican II. People would be so much better off sticking with the splendor of truth found in the real Magisterium of the Church. That catechism is clearly an attempt by a disgruntled auxiliary bishop to establish an alternative one. I genuinely wonder if Scott who is such a great scholar actually read the entire thing before endorsing it…

Have you read Credo?

Opined in sermons no beatific vision for the saved until the general judgement. Cardinals pushed back. Commission set up ruled against J22 who recanted before his death insisting it was theological opinion and not magisterial teaching. Our current situation is unique too and more problematic so our understanding of the petrine ministry will grow. Indeed JP2 invited the Orthodox to a dialog that would define the petrine ministry. Thus the last word on the topic has not been said yet IMHO.

I agree. Pope Paul VI, in giving his formal approval to the dogmatic definitions which were the final result of the Second Vatican Council, did not sign as “Pontifex Maximus” (pp the traditional way in which a Pope would sign a document) nor even as “Bishop of Rome”. He signed the documents simply by “Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church” making it clear that he was signing simply as one of the Bishops of the Catholic Church, even though, as Bishop of Rome, he was considered the most senior Bishop when it came to defining matters of dogma. In doing so, he was making it clear that it was the Bishops of the Church, in Council, who were the ultimate teaching authority in the Church and that he was only there to “confirm the brethren” that is to say, confirm that the decisions of the Bishops of the Church in Council had been validly made. Pope Francis has refused to use the title “Vicar of Christ” and “Pontinfex Maximus” since Christ needs no Vicar, having promised to be with his Church, in person, always, to the end of the age and there is only one “High Priest” (Pontifex Maximus) that is, Christ himself. I think that it showed great humility and a very sound understanding of where the teaching authority of the Church really lay for Pope Paul VI to simply sign “Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church”.

@@tonymole7396 And your point is? Assuming your facts are true, none of that proves your position or disproves the Catholic position. Popes are bishops too. Therefore, referring to themselves as the “Bishop of Rome” (because they are) does not in any manner whatsoever contradict the Catholic position. They can even go further and still refer to themselves as fellow priests (which they have). I suggest you consult Reason & Theology to clear up any misinformation regarding Pope Francis and the title “Vicar of Christ.”

@@freda7961 Pope Paul VI wished to assert the “Conciliar” nature of the teaching authority of the Church, so signed only as a fellow Bishop, not as Vicar of Christ, nor as Pontifex Maximus, which had been the previous tradition. While the Bishop of Rome has the charism of “confirming the brethren” this does not mean that all truth, and all teaching authority in the Church resides only in the person of the Pope. There is enough evidence in the history of the Church to confirm that this is the case.

@@tonymole7396 Catholicism asserts that all teaching authority resides solely in the Pope? I'm not an expert, but even I know that that's simply not true.

Protestant converts probably 😅

Yeah, that actually makes sense. He is a potential patron saint for converts from Protestantism, or perhaps publishers of religious works…or of cassette tape lecturers /jk (I just know that he first came to be known partly because of those lectures).

@@TrixRN Patron Saint of Converts😇🙏💖

@@alelilaceda3539 Yes, he was instrumental in my conversion.😊🙏❤️

He's the Contra-Luther.