The most DETAILED interview I've done on the papacy (w/ Erick Ybarra) 

Obrigado por sua franqueza, professor! Bem-vindo à Santa Igreja Católica, como dizemos os católicos no Símbolo dos Apóstolos! Assisti a uma palestra sua sobre direito humanitário e me impressionei muito positivamente. Não tive a honra de ser seu aluno, mas cursei uma especialização em Direito Penal na Universidade de Salamanca, o que muito me marcou (inclusive porque sua tradição histórica universitária, já desde os 1200s, não foi tanto a teologia sacra quanto o direito canônico, área de particular interesse meu). Comecei logo ali a admirar o “Ius Gentium” dos dominicanos de Salamanca e dos jesuítas de Coimbra. Longo conto, escrevo só para dizer apenas que, como falam por aí, “Petro Origo Unitatis”! Fraternalmente (do Brasil), abs.

@@masterchief8179 muito obrigado. Por acaso estou neste momento no Brasil, em Campinas. O direito humanitário também contribuiu para a mudança do meu pensamento, ao compreender como a teologia católica de Agostinho, Aquino, Bernardo de Claraval, Suárez, Vitória e Molina, entre muitos outros, contribuíram para o lançamento das suas bases.

Welcome home!

Amazing! Praise God! And bless God for your openness.

Austin still a protestant. Don't be fooled. He just wants subscriber from Catholic community.

Well stated! 😊

Not every Protestant 1) Hates Mary, 2) Denies no presence in the Lord's Supper (see John Calvin on Spiritual Presence - he would even say we feed on the body and blood of Christ!), 3) Not ignoring those words, but also taking the related passage of John 20 into consideration, and 4) is an exclusively baptistic/contemporary evangelical thing, not so for those in Anglicanism/Reformed/Lutheran traditions. Brother I must ask you, did you consider that your Baptist views might not necessarily be representative of all Protestants? And that you may also find a more accurate and true Christian faith in other Protestant traditions?

@@hewziheng That's only proves , that protestants don't hold whole truth , too much diversity among them .By the way How anyone can even hates Mary?,, Not every protestant hates Mary'' That's mean that some do.They might disagree , but hating, this is unacceptable.

@@hewziheng claiming that Jesus meant his spirit body is the same as saying Jesus didn’t mean that it was his body. His body is his body and he said his body was actual food. And no Protestant denomination can have the full faith by virtue that they are in rebellion to the successors of the apostles and especially and specifically Peter.

@Jónatas Machado - great points Jonatas. I look at the woman in Rev 12, and particularly verse 17 'rest of her offspring' , those of us who have Mary (& The Church) as our Mother, as the twain are inseparable!

Praise God! welcome!

Welcome to the universal church!

Praise God!

To be fair, Erick truly steelmans the case against Catholicism to the point of disbelief. I remember I became convinced of Catholicism by just reading the fathers myself with little input from apologists. Nothing against Erick but I don't think that was the approach of the church. The church always knew its identity. Neutrality was never present in the church. The church is where the faith was kept, when Clement wrote to Corinthians about Schism, when Irenaeus pointed everyone to Rome, when Ignatius declared them to rule in charity. When the bishop of Smyrna clashed with Pope Victor on Easter. When I surveyd the fathers I saw Rome acting as a supreme court and always saw quotations regarding it being the see of Peter. Now, could I still make some Orthodox case, perhaps but then again there seemed to be at least even footing. The faith was not delivered to the nuanced and big brained. The faith was delivered. Period. God would not let the world dwell in darkness. So history would showcase the true church. Its successes and failures and of course its evangelism.

​@@jackdaw6359 I agree, but someone like Ybarra is necessary to keep the dialogue possible. Ultimately, each of us is called to accept or refuse the Truth, and Ybarra's charitable approach allows non Catholics to take full responsibility for their decisions.

Prayerful. I believe what you’re seeing is the result of a strong prayer life

Praying you become 💯 Catholic! 😇🙏🏽

@@theticoboy I think I’m 200% Catholic now lol

@@delvaassante5699 ah i misread your comment. Thought you weren’t Catholic. Was about to invite you into the Church. Lol

@@theticoboy lol

@@delvaassante5699😂😂😂

Thanks, Mike!

Same!!

Lol. But well, to a point, yes 😂

Roberto tapia you should watch cira international and Lloyd de jongh and reasoned answers and godlogic apologetics on RU-vid and watch all the channels on RU-vid roberto tapia 😀😀😀😀😀😀

@@efrencruz4422 I agree with all those. Lloyd is hitting it out of the park every video for a while now but they are all great recommendations.

Well, have you ever asked the Holy Fathers what do they think about this passage? I mean, what does "this rock" (Mt 16:18) refer to? St John Chrysostom says that it refers to the CORRECT CONFESSION of who Christ is that Peter had just made, not to Peter himself. By the way, this is not exclusive to Chrysostom, there are other Holy Fathers of this opinion.

@@fernandoxavier5688 1) Having that view doesnt negate also why Simon becomes Peter, OR the primacy of Peter. 2) John Chrysostoms notes on the gospels also mention the primacy of Peter, here a quote that comes to mind with a source. “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John, 88.1).

@@fernandoxavier5688 Just taking one Church Father gravely out of context so as to deny the papacy won’t do it any good for the Catholic/Non-Catholic dialogue.

And now reads Act 15.

@@fernandoxavier5688 Oh, Fernando, by the way, I’ve not even quoted Latin texts of the first millennium and and I have not brought some of the most important Eastern texts either.

well said.

Very cool to see other people from Puerto Rico that are also interested in these topics. 🇵🇷 🇵🇷

I’ve enjoyed it personally

Hello, Jeremiah! One thing that is often perceptible in the field of apologetics is that non-Catholic apologists most certainly try to prove not so much their position historically and theologically; they ostensibly hit on the Catholic one instead, and then present theirs (implicitly or even explicitly) as the alleged “default”. So anti-Catholic apologetics concerning the papacy will certainly come to picking two or three polemical popes (Virgilius and Honorius, maybe, just maybe Liberius) of the first millennium and-or two or three ecclesiastical events in the history of the church (not uncommonly related to those very popes), and present a particular anti-Catholic interpretation, at the same time they utterly dismiss the Catholic interpretations for them. But what is curious of this pattern is that they tend to avoid some “unavoidable” theological and historical facts, like, for example, the reality that there weren’t important written “papal polemics” pretty much until the Photian Schism (863-867), when the first serious writings against Rome were ever produced, even ignoring the later writings of Photius’ “pretty papal” views after communion with Rome was reestablished, for instance (that would be seemingly unacceptable for EO post-Great schism, by the way). At the same time, anti-Catholic apologists don’t find the need to seriously engage and justify the massive amount of saints in the Patristic era that talked about how the Roman headship in the Church of the 1st millennium at the universal level operated East and West (with clear manifestations of jurisdiction, not an honorific-only type of leadership), or about papal acts and injunctions in the ‘oukoumene’ on the gravest matters of Church life, or the massive writings of the saints concerning this authority, even connecting supremacy and the measuring-rod of the orthodox faith with the Petrine ministry of Rome (and the promise of Our Lord made to Peter), or the fact that papal supremacy - and even infallibility - were arguably manifested through a number of documents of Ecumenical Councils themselves, mostly Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Third Constantinople (680-681) and Second Nicea (787). No, no, no. They most certainly will come with things like “it was Byzantine flattery” or “the Eastern bishops were insincere” or “they accepted the claims only through the convenience of reuniting the Church” or “the Ecumenical Councils only accepted the papal claims of letter X or Y or Z because the popes (or their legates) were on the correct side of the disputed matter in the Councils” or “Rome had up to some specific point of history a great record for orthodoxy”, and so forth. Even serious theologians may act just like that in some of their anti-Catholic scholarships! While one can be microscopically picking events in history to try to undermine the papacy (discrediting Catholic explanations for those, as if it was just ‘explaining away’), the same one can act almost blind to serious attestations of things that would be, for non-Catholic people, nothing but blatant and intolerable heresies written by enormous saints of Latin, Greek and Syriac Patristics and even documents approved by Ecumenical Councils. I’m not trying to bash anyone, but that ‘modus operandi’ is shared by likes of Ubi Petrus/Jay Dyer and Gavin Ortlund among online apologetics. It never ceases to impress me how they can even say it is Catholics who are explaining things away. How non-Catholics can even get out with that is a mystery to me, I humbly say. I sincerely hope Erick points this out during the interview and that Austin can investigate whatever he feels needs investigation, with honesty and as a real truth-seeker. God bless you and yours!

The Roman Papacy Supremacy is based upon numerous forgeries.

Maybe the Holy Spirit should be tasked with conversion and not Erick. That's a lot to put on a mere man. Even if that man is Erick Ybarra.

@@halleylujah247 🎯

​@@halleylujah247 Holy Spirit works through people.

Oh that sounds great! Discussion not debate

That would be a conversation I'd need to hear.

Just because the rosary is such an amazing prayer doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t pray directly to Jesus also! Find a church or chapel where Adoration takes place if you haven’t ❤ and maybe find some Catholic parishes that do Bible study or have any sort of prayer groups

Hi Caroline! This comment hurt my heart a little. I am sorry that you have experienced dryness and some confusion since becoming Catholic. I am a 33 year old mom and it makes me sad that you have not found your place yet, in a way. It is easy to get bogged down by the drama and inter-arguments in the Church. The Church will stand because Christ is our head and the holy spirit is guiding it, but it doesnt take away the fact that humans have made it so messy. Please continue to lean on the Lord in the Eucharist. He will never disappoint. There are many voices one can listen to on youtube/certain news channels that focus on the negative aspects of the Church and its easy to get overwhelmed by it. Perhaps pray about what voices you are listening to the most. Find those who uplift your spirit. There are some very obvious TLM channels that I stay away from. I love Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn, "Theology of Home" books/website, the Institute of Catholic Culture (incredible!), EWTN, and many holy priests, "saints alive" podcast for children, "mothergood" podcast, "Girlboss, interrupted" podcast, "Abiding together" podcast, "the summa domestica" books and SO many more. Lastly, and so sorry this is so long....You mentioned how much you miss "home groups" and while I have no idea what those are (I'm a cradle catholic), I would ask you to really prayerfully consider starting a women's group or the Catholic equivalent of whatever "home groups" are at your parish or a mom's group! Converts are SUCH a GIFT to the Church and have amazing talents and insights that enrich the Church. I think your parish would absolutely benefit from your eager desire to serve God in His Church. Don't let the devil dampen your spirit and fervor for Christ. Your parish needs the laity to help build it up. I hope I didn't step on your toes at all. I will be praying for you by name and I will ask God to send you consolation and joy and companions. God bless you! -Marie

@@bluecomb5376 Thank you! My efforts thus far to create home groups have had little interest but Covid definitely didnt help. Also, some health issues of late have taken the wind out of my sails. We have a new priest who seems to share some of my sentiments and just this morning said "dont just read prayers from a book but talk to God from your heart", which was encouraging. He also is encouraging people to gather after sunday morning masses for coffee. He is more evangelical than many priests and I like that. The Catholic spirit is generally less evangelical because traditionally unbelievers could not go to mass and had to have lengthy schooling before receiving. Protestants converted me with the gospel message very effectively. This is lacking in Catholicism. The reformation happened for a reason. We should learn from it not try to go back to before it. Protestantism touched my heart with the love of God and Catholicim has helped to deepen my walk in some ways yet I long to see the call to others and the warm embrace that Protestants so uniquely provide.

@@carolinepedersenable I totally understand what you are saying and it is true that we have a lot to learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters in terms of reaching out with the warm embrace. Thank you for sharing. I am so happy you have found the Church and I will pray that you can feel that warmth. God bless you, Caroline!

@Caroline Pedersen - The closer you come to Christ, the more you will know what it feels like to 'pick up your cross and follow him' , feel what He felt, that 'hour alone in the garden when even His own disciples couldn't stay awake with Him just one hour'. Be careful not to slip back to the 'comforts' that the world offers (and offered you in the past). Be the one to 'stay awake just an hour with Him' - and He will replace your anxieties with the overwhelming Love He has for all of us, no matter what our petty bickering don't let that consume you.

bro that's crap, let the guy be a protestant with an open mind, we need many more like him

@@mjramirez6008 Catholics are the most Open minded brother. It's his Journey bro, that is what he said that is why he is open to all Christian community in Search of Truth and that doesn't have to stop there if he becomes Catholic. He is discerning his way to God. I hope that he becomes Catholic it's a desire in good faith. What's wrong in that? I would really Love that he come to know more deeply the Riches of Catholic Faith as I came to know it, and was in Awe. If One comes to know the Truth and Loves it more than anything, he will Shout it out from Tops of the Mountains. He doesn't have to break relationship or stop talking to his other friends. If he becomes Catholic mate. Many Catholics keep the friends even after they chose to become Catholic. Though I agree it is hard to Leave all behind to Say I want to become Catholic from a Non-Catholic denomination. Last of all I would say this, No other Church denomination could claim God is With Us. As in 'Emmanuel' as Catholics claim. Do you know the reason why? Simply because he dwells in the Tabernacles of a Catholic Church in Holy Eucharist. And Literally God is with Us!!! He will be there till the End of times with his Visible Church. Which is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic in nature. 🙏🏻

@@delvingeorge2807 Catholics are not open minded. The Catholics I've interacted with have been among the worst people I've ever met. I actually had a crisis of faith over it, and those same Catholics just kicked me while I was down, blaming my doubts on my being a Protestant, etc.

@@delvingeorge2807 sure Delvin but he's said Orthodoxy appeals to him more than Catholicism... maybe taking as a given that he's becoming Catholic is having the opposite effect... Blessings.

@@mjramirez6008 We've got Byzantine and Syriac Churches too. Hence the name Catholic. I am a Syro-malabar Catholic. Yes he said that but everything appealing is not true always is what I believe. God bless you too mate! Peace of Christ Jesus be with you!🙏🏻

That's why you need this video.

Thanks for the recommendation! I hope she enjoys the channel

Bro 🤣

Well, Agatho's letters was absorbed as the Council's own utterance. If you read closely the Acts, that becomes clear. Also, if it were a singular instance, you might have a point. Might. But it is a link in a long chain of claims and acceptances of the same doctrine.

@@Erick_Ybarra we accepted much of Augustine but not all. The same is true of many saints and fathers of the Church. From our perspective the pattern is actually one of honor and selective acceptance. We have no pattern of the dogmatic acceptance of entire works or entire utterances. Thus, we answer the challenge posed in the interview quite easily. We would have to share Roman Catholic assumptions for this gotcha to work... and we don't.

​@@Erick_Ybarra Further, we accept the Canons that came out of the Ecumenical Council, of which this letter is not one AFAIK. Just to point out the distinction. Accepting a council as Ecumenical does not mean accepting everything that was said regardless of person or context.

Imo someone like Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck is much better than Ubi in terms or making solid arguments for Orthodoxy. Ubi really isn’t impressive idk why e-orthobros are obsessed

@@jebbush2527 Agreed. And Ubi calls people who don’t give him money cheap. Just look at his community posts re: Financial support, though quite a few comments are no longer there.

​​@@jebbush2527 ​I'll check that person out. I've been having a hard time finding EO apologists. They just don't seem as abundant on RU-vid as Catholic apologists. That being said, Ubi's videos have helped me a lot when it comes to understanding EO arguments against the papacy.

​@@mattjackson450 are you orthodox?

​@@jebbush2527 thanks!

He's on my list!

Yes thanks for sharing his channel 👍

The Bishops together have a magisterium where they can issue an infallible statement and the Pope has his own magisterium which can do it in conjunction with the Bishops but also by himself. This is what prevented Arianism for example and other heresies from destroying the church like you see with todays church’s and there seeking to modernize to the world. Infallibility is to protect the faith,

@@brianfarley926 No, actually the First Council defended the Church against Arianism.

@@matthewgroh8797 yes I know you’re not making a point. I already said it was the Church’s authority that defeated Arianism. The Pope played a vital role in this as well along with other Bishops. And there is 2 different Magisterium’s not just one in a more qualified sense. You have the College of Bishops who together can make an infallible teaching as well as the Pope who can as well. Both can also issues authoritative teachings that aren’t infallible either and other levels of teaching authority

@@brianfarley926I’m reading a book on church history and it seems to paint a picture of the pope Liberius giving in to the emperor’s views of Arianism. It also seems to imply most of the bishops fell into this heresy. I am trying to gain a better understanding off church history but I’m starting to see the bias of this Protestant historian. Could you point me in the direction of Catholic works at the time that better describe the Arian crises?

@@andrevaca6700 about 50% of the Bishops or perhaps more supported Arianism. Without the Magisterium Christianity wouldn’t have defeated this heresy

I wouldn’t call it a gorilla in the room. I’d call it an elephant int he fridge.

@@TP-om8of because it doesn't fit or belong there?

@@Giorginho ​ ​ No, no. It’s because it’s simply impossible to miss, except one becomes so blind to skip such enormous evidences when obstinately looking for addictive chocolate bars he or she knows are also there (only they are to serve the passions of the flesh)! 😇😉 Hehehe, I liked your profile photo. From Brazil with love. God bless!

Look at the problems in the church in Corinth where one of the members was committing incest with his mother.

Which flavor of orthodoxy is drawing you?

It’s not about being traditional Catholic it’s about being Catholic. No modifiers needed. The tradition lives.

Orthodoxy is "the truth " catholics broke away from the one true church with through supremacy of the pope and the filioque. The Apostles that lived closest to Christ where Orthodox. We follow Christ's teachings through them and the Holy Father's. Your soul will be at peace being Orthodox

People do not realize that the papacy and the church had a vital role in the creation and development of the university, hospital, art, science and the justice system of the western civilization. The papacy led the struggle and survival of Christianity against the barbarians (Vikings, Visigoths, etc.) and Islam. The granting of a master's degree is a sign of qualification of his/her own profession. University degrees were approved by the pope, the king, or monarch. - the papacy played a central role in establishing universities. The granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. The Pope has authority in all Christendom and degrees approved by the pope are respected in all Christendom, while the kings approval was only valid in the kingdom in which they were issued. Likewise in Art and science were supported by the popes. Cathedrals were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Even atheist Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (academy of sciences of the Vatican city). The Jesuits have been the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century. Christian Art created by the greatest artist/composers in the world like Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Schumann, Vivaldi, Williams, etc. were all commissioned by the popes. What would western civilization be without the arts/music, science, universities and hospitals that were pioneered by the early church, led by the popes.

It is a source of unity in original Christianity, that meaning Catholics, the ones that rejected papacy went out of that unity.

this is the role of the Holy Spirit to unite usin Christ, we dont give the office of unity to a singular bishop

@@jalildragneel2674 Only if you believe that. Both Orthodox and Protestants disagree with you.

@@EmberBright2077 John 21:15-17 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Well yes you could argue that orthodox and protestants disagree with me, but I'm the only one, as a Catholic not stating a useless opinion, I'm stating the facts, whether you reject the order Jesus gave to this one single Bishop, is your problem... Now we have a problem, people calling themselves christians while rejecting undeniable truth spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ "take care of my sheep" spoken to Peter before the others, three times for foolish people that won't believe what he says a single time, yet you still whine and reject his words.

@@josephmary969 now convince me with facts.

It’s strange that he’s using Newman to down play history

Okay?

That’s a description of the tyrant single-player pope that also happens to be an oracle, not of the Successor of Peter (according to the Catholic Church). But that’s exactly how “Ubi Petrus” misleads former Protestants (mostly exploring their anti-Catholic biases, probably some serious lack of theological/ historical knowledge and also some emotional inclinations). Tragically, people still fall for that kind of reasoning, which became so handful and mainstream to EO online apologetics. The argument can be expounded as this: 1) history registers that Ecumenical Councils are a fact, 2) the “Rambo Pope” with an oracle machine gun, on the contrary, doesn’t exist; 3) therefore, it follows that the “Catholic papacy” is false. One can easily perceive that the fallacy relies on making a caricature of the pope as a solipsistic autocrat, the “Rambo pope”.

@@masterchief8179 I don't like this accusation of anti-catholic bias, especially when I see plenty of bias on the Catholic side. Y'all are hypocrites at best, and lying hypocrites otherwise.

That's one of the things that stops me from believing in that stuff. If you have the power to speak infallibly, why do it so rarely?

@@EmberBright2077 ​ Everyone has bias but that’s not what I’m talking about. When you look at popular manifestations of Protestantism, mostly American Evangelicalism, then you know what I’m talking about. Many people - not all, but many - can be educated by families and even by pastors to hate (a caricature of) the Catholic Church that becomes intrinsic to their “ethos”, and the fear is so tremendous that so many will give a fair chance to whomever first and just then consider listening to the Catholic Church in equity and fairness, if ever. But if you don’t want to understand the point, well, I’m not here to convince you. I just insist: the argument _“if the pope (…), then why (…) Ecumenical Councils?”_ is so bad. Actually, it’s terrible. Still we are good, my friend.

@@EmberBright2077Because it’s a lie.

Yes, let's.

The fruit is good.

Catholics: spread the faith to literally every continent Orthodox: sit in their monasteries staring at their belly button while compiling Byzantine lists You want to get polemical, let's get polemical

​@@newglof9558 Of course you are right, but I'd invite you to avoid polemics.

​@@newglof9558 The *manner* in which Orthodox have historically spread the faith is, in fact, a big draw for many people for whom the Catholic missionary history is a big hurdle. Generally speaking, the Orthodox do not have the significant record of cultural, linguistic, and literal genocide at the hands of their missionaries that the Catholic church does. For many of us that "fruit" hits very close to home.

Yes, friend. It is not enough to say you believe, but you must incarnate that faith in good works, which are the real sign of a genuine faith. Whoever does not have these signs - charity, joy, kindness, patience - is not following Christ.

@@rhwinner the corrupt tree I'm referring to is the papacy.

@@BaikalTii Hi, friend. We all must stand before the judgement seat of God and be held accountable for our actions and every word that we say. Popes included. Yet we should not fear, if we have Jesus as our Advocate both here on earth and in the afterlife. We are joyful and at peace. We love you also, no matter what set of beliefs you hold! ❤️🙏♥️

@@BaikalTiiThe true corruption is those with no teaching authority, no hierarchy, who simply decide to interpret the Bible themselves. They become their own Church. Jesus Himself prayed for unity, and the only Christian unity is the Catholic Church.

@@limoncellosmith7594 you think I'm a protestant. lol

The clarity of Catholicism comes from history. What makes things difficult is in the magisterial coherence of the last 1,000 years.

For orthodoxy to be surprised by the existence of the papacy they must have thought there were two churches or more from the beginning. If not they must be subject to the universal leader of the church and his successors.

@@koppite9600 You misunderstood my comment. What I was surprised by was the idea that if the universality of the papacy was such a clear teaching, one would think that it would be so clear as to not even be something to weigh. Rather, it was clear that it was conciliar for the first millenium and then the Roman view developed over time.

@@Erick_Ybarra That's an interesting clarification. As an Orthodoxy Christian, I'm much more interested in the first millenium.

@@WillardPreacherPodcast what makes it clear that papacy was conciliar?

Also, the famous question by JPII, “What can the pope do to serve!” (slight paraphrase as I can’t remember the exact wording) I’m finding the definitions of papal supremacy given these days by Trads to be acceptable as an EO. I’m also of the kind that the pope is what he is regardless of confession: recent popes have served the wider church more than make demands. Their pastoral office is an IS, a given. If popes continue to serve the RCC, the wider church/Christianity, & the world, they will, in part, be fulfilling their office. As to overcoming schism, that takes repentance & the Spirit. It cannot be programmed.

I guess you guys would definitely appreciate reading the document “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church”. It was written by Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998, and it shows a great deal of his ecclesiology concerning the primacy of Peter. He explicitly says _“only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church”._ That’s not like relativizing Catholic truths pronounced by the definitive magisterium. They are truths, not opinions. So we must find ways to better articulate the Catholic Petrine primacy in charity, humility and service, not concede it out. That’s his core (and even humble) argument. Still it’s actually not the “Trads” nor the “Libs” (whatever those mean and whomever they are) that have a good say through each one’s agenda in ecclesiastical affairs. Prior to pope Francis it was the “Libs” the ones questioning the authority of the pope in a way that Orthodox would find “appealing”; now it’s the “Trads”. But we Catholics believe in the authority of the Church - not in taylormarshalism - because under that design she is guided “par excellence” by the Holy Spirit into all truths. And being in communion with Peter, exactly what many refuse with obstinacy (in some cases at the cost of jeopardizing their souls), is the way to truly grant it. By the way, during the Ecumenical Council of Vatican I (1870), one of the so-called “RadTrad” faction defended Ultramontanism, a kind of papal absolutism in line with what king Louis XIV of France would say of his model of governance (“the king [pope] can do no wrong”, more or less). The other “RadTrad” faction was on the exact opposite spectrum (much alike the Byzantine schismatic mentality around the Photian Schism and then the Great Schism, whose unconfessed premise was the “imperialization” of the Church), what can be called Gallicanism: they were the ones sustaining that the papal authority was honorific in essence over the notion of the Roman Empire being the model of the Church in her reality, therefore the Petrine decisions lacked “immediacy” (‘imediatum’ in Latin means “without mediation”) except in his diocesan Rome, and should be submitted to the ‘referendum’ of National Synods (like in France, Spain, etc), almost certainly controlled - or at least supervised - by each National State, so as to attain enforceability inside each territory. Both models are anti-Catholic by definition. It was the ‘moderates’ the ones backed up by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity who never fails to guide the Church into all Truth. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, explicitly stated that communion with Rome is NOT an accidental feature of the Church. It is constitutive of its fullest and also its universal (=Catholic, in this sense) expression. He was always very amicable to the Eastern churches in schism and even says the pope being the “Servant of the Servants of God”, a gift of divine mercy to the Church, is the way to work for unity, at the same time he says “full and real communion with the Roman Pontiff”, in his own words, is an ESSENTIAL ecclesiological attribute desired by Christ. So, for him, the only way to unity as desired by God is by reaffirming this Catholic truth and not relativizing it, so as to accomplish Christ’s will. Still he thinks there must be some optimum way to do it and only the Holy Spirit can show us how to. Therefore, it is always surprising to me to see Pope Benedict XVI’s words meaning what they - definitely - don’t mean. Let us just read part of the document by Cardinal Ratzinger (1998) in the CDF: _”14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ._ _15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith". The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly "that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is -- in God's plan -- an essential requisite of full and visible communion". Human errors and even serious failings can be found in the history of the papacy: Peter himself acknowledged he was a sinner. Peter, a weak man, was chosen as the rock precisely so that everyone could see that victory belongs to Christ alone and is not the result of human efforts. Down the ages the Lord has wished to put his treasure in fragile vessels: human frailty has thus become a sign of the truth of God's promises._ _When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic". We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter._ God bless!

So by that logic you would have to abandon all protestant churches & teachings because the solas were developmental and not found anywhere in scripture nor history. You would also have to abandon the EO church as well regarding their doctrinal developments when they allowed for various methods of contraception. Your illogic will eventually cause you to undermine the very foundation of the faith. . Doctrine that was developed after further being studied, clarified, and expanded in understanding of, support of and accordance with the early fathers does not render it invalid simply by virtue of it being "developed".

​@@chad_hominem @Chadasana Moves I agree with the protestants being invalid , ofcourse they are! As for the Eastern orthodox church having doctrines developed I'm sorry you are wrong or ignorant. we clearly believe this is heretical. Paul said you have known my doctrine. Acts says they continued in the apostles doctrine. The problem with Roman Catholicism is the so called development is an evolution or change of kind from one idea into a fully fledged doctrine which as the clip says cannot be see clearly manifested. If you're like to say orthodox do the same then this is error. Explaining doctrine's isn't the same as snow balling primacy into supremacy. Being first isn't the same as being ruler. As for contraception Roman Catholics believe it's okay to prevent pregnancy by abstaining from intercourse during the fertile week, but will still have sex for the pleasure the other weeks of the month avoiding pregnancy. Now most would claim you can't use a condom to prevent pregnancy because you are abstaining from the possibility and only having the sexual act for pleasure. Don't you see the hypocrisy? And sure the condom can break allowing for a possibility. This being said the Roman Catholic church stance varies on the subject from priest and bishop. Their is no consistency. At least within Orthodoxy we have no clear dogma on a condom, though we have clear teaching on sex and the reasons for sex which give us our teaching on the subject. You now might claim but the priests and bishops teaching the use of xondoms as okay are wrong because the catechism says x,y and z.... Actually the teaching of the church is that the catechism doesn't contain only and all dogmas, and is able to be changed which is has been, numerous times. Speaking as a convert from protestantism into Roman Catholic (vetus ordo) and now western orthodox.

@@josephmary969 you might get a kick out of this 1 1/2 minute clip. It even brings up Honorius, who Erick brought up in this discussion: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jgq1_oUQ388.html

@@BornAgainRN haha there was a smirk or two from the clip haha

@@chad_hominem Protestants don't claim infallibility, so developmental understanding isn't a problem for us.

Hi Tracey, What objections do you think I've not addressed?

I suspect that what you mean regarding the long-debunked arguments are the ones perhaps made by the millennial converts from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy as dogmatically defined by the ortho bros.

@@palermotrapani9067 ooo good one, got me

What’s the Vatican I dogmatics that is supposedly a novelty? Just to avoid the “Rambo bishop” caricature, some concepts must be explained for those of good faith and good will. It’s pretty basic, but not so much for anti-Catholics (almost certainly former Protestants) that just recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, I guess. Let me try to help here: *1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches, nor is subject to it in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” - mediatory participation is preferable).

*2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean, obviously, that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony in the Gospels and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of those in schism). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that “every apostle” received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation in being in communion with Peter -, and we know that meant a king conferring power to his representative (= “vicarium”), just like in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in a Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brothers collectively. Therefore, this Petrine singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicate that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that this unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies the Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but of the world”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). And there resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; AND ALSO a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church.

*3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” under a territory but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. EO usually conflates ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be an error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). Still the word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of anti-Catholics who may have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and get furious over the mere word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome. I only post this to help people who are honestly discerning these things so that they are not wronged by Catholic (repetitive) misrepresentation. As far as “the papacy” telling no one should accept a theory of development to explain the papacy (the ecclesiology and the canon law behind it), well, it’s just too nonsensical to deserve a rational reply (in all due respect) that I could offer here. God bless you and yours!

Vatican I reaffirms what was stated at Ephesus: “Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (e!carkoj) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (qeme/lioj) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.”

@@verenice2656 Thanks, sister. Not only Ephesus (431): Chalcedon (451), Third Constantinople (680-681) and Second Nicaea (787) should make the same case, with some impressive manifestations. One of the greatest, nevertheless, is to compare the words of “Pastor Aeternus” (Vatican I) and one of the very Letters of St Agatho to the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd Council of Constantinople, 680-681): __________ First Vatican Council, ‘Pastor Aeternus’, Chapter 4 (1870): _”(…) Indeed, _*_their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the VENERABLE FATHERS_*_ and _*_reverenced and followed by all the HOLY ORTHODOX DOCTORS,_*_ for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always _*_REMAINS UNBLEMISHED by any error, in accordance with the divine promise_*_ of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren‘ [Lk 22, 32]”_ __________ The Letter of Pope Saint Agatho to the Emperor (actas of the 6th EC, received with acclamation) (680-681): _“(…) because the true confession thereof for which _*_PETER_*_ was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, _*_THIS Apostolic Church of his has NEVER TURNED AWAY from the path of truth in any direction of error,_*_ whose authority, as that of the _*_Prince of all the Apostles,_*_ the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; _*_and all the VENERABLE FATHERS have embraced its Apostolic doctrine,_*_ through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; _*_and the HOLY ORTHODOX DOCTORS have venerated and followed it,_*_ while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere…. the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, _*_which by his grace and GUARDIANSHIP REMAINS FREE FROM all error”_* . Vatican I uses the exact same language, almost word for word, in a clear parallelism (“Venerable Fathers” embracing; “Holy Orthodox Doctors” venerating/ reverencing and following). Honestly, it’s rather impressive that people even try to put those away. God bless!

Hi! Long time no see. So I have struggled with how to interpret the situation. I have consulted others, including the colleague that is working with Fr. Richard Price in his forthcoming volume of the Acts of Cple 681, and he recognizes what is a conundrum. Agatho's letter is interlaced with emphatic claims to Papal infallibility. You have to read the whole text carefully. While it is true that Agatho understood that the application of divine protection to Peter's see involved the pristine orthodoxy of all his predecessors (something which is still defensible, I might add), the Greek hierarchy at the Council not only translated the Latin of Agatho's letter word for word, but kept the claims to infallibility in the official Acts. When it came time to giving their assessment of Agatho's letter, they praise all of its contents as a divinely written letter written by God in Peter through Agatho. In other words, they did not simply read the letter and exaim it as being in agreement with the Council, but they lauded its divine origin in Petrinological terms. In fact the Emperor flat said the Pope wrote an infallible (not least inerrant) document in light of the Petrine protection. In light of Honorius's anathema, we can say that the Council both welcomes the belief in divine infallibility for the Roman See and that its occupants can err under certain conditions. If you reject Papal infallibility altogether, you truly have a bigger problem because you are rejecting a conciliar text that the Spirit left in the Acts by the discretion and judgment of the Council.

@@Erick_Ybarra "While it is true that Agatho understood that the application of divine protection to Peter's see involved the pristine orthodoxy of all his predecessors (something which is still defensible, I might add), the Greek hierarchy at the Council not only translated the Latin of Agatho's letter word for word, but kept the claims to infallibility in the official Acts." I cannot see how Honorius is at all to be seen as orthodox. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Seventh, The Council of Trullo, all see Honorius as a heretic, and there can be no way a heretic is orthodox. Of course, many scholars today may see in Honorius as espousing a two-will Christology, but why should they be preferred to the hundreds of holy fathers who clearly saw him as un-orthodox? "When it came time to giving their assessment of Agatho's letter, they praise all of its contents as a divinely written letter written by God in Peter through Agatho" The problem then is that the council then contradicts itself. If God said that all of Agatho's predecessors were orthodox and the council condemns Honorius for not being orthodox then holy council goes against God, the council would instead proclaim Honorius as orthodox and would not condemn him in subsequent sessions. "In other words, they did not simply read the letter and exaim it as being in agreement with the Council, but they lauded its divine origin in Petrinological terms." The council did examine the letter of Agatho. It was read out at session two and agreement with it was not given by Patriarch Saint George of Constantinople until the eighth session two months later. "In light of Honorius's anathema, we can say that the Council both welcomes the belief in divine infallibility for the Roman See and that its occupants can err under certain conditions." Or that it didn't take the claims of Saint Agatho regarding Rome's infallibility literally. The very same council declared that the Gates of Hades would never triumph over the Byzantine Empire, yet no Roman Catholic has taken that declaration literally. "If you reject Papal infallibility altogether, you truly have a bigger problem because you are rejecting a conciliar text that the Spirit left in the Acts by the discretion and judgment of the Council." The issue with this is that it cuts both ways. The Councils, for example, venerate as saints and holy people those that the Roman Catholic Church would today condemn as schismatics. Theophilus of Alexandria was praised as a saint at both Ephesus 431 and Constantinople 553, even though he died outside of communion with the Pope of Rome and flagrantly disregarded his support of Chrysostom. Three Patriarchs of Constantinople were seen as Orthodox by the Council of 681, even though they died outside of Rome's communion. Even the Fifth Ecumenical Council broke off communion with the Pope.

@@stdostoyevsky2931 St. Maximos the Confessor, Pope John VI, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and, well presumably, many others, all defended Honorius. He was venerated as a Saint by Maximos, and he died in the peace of the Church, buried in Rome with honor. The Council condemned Honorius off the quick-jerk sight of "one will in Christ Jesus", when it was clearly the case, as shown by Maximos, that this is not what Honorius was teaching. Keep in mind, neither Pope St. Martin or St. Maximos were in good graces during the Council of Constantinople 681. As far as the Greeks were concerned, especially the Monothelite intelligentsia (imperial and all), Maximos was an enemy of the state. If you read Honorius's letters carefully, it is quite plain that he taught a two will Christology. If you'd like to discuss that in a live setting, I would be willing to do that with you. On the matter of the Council's judgment - Unfortunately, the Council shut away the wisdom of previous Church Fathers who decried the injustice of condemning people who had already passed away in the good graces of the Church. Both Rome and Constantinople bought into the legitimacy of posthumous anathema, ever since C'ple 553. That is not something that endured long, at least for the Catholic Church. Today, there is no canonical justice that would allow that. And rightly so, as it returns to the Patristic wisdom on the matter. And so I would say Councils can err in matters not related to dogmatic utterances. I am not a "Conciliar Fundamentalist" who believes everything Councils do must be right. Emperor Justinian ran the entire show of Constantinople (553), a clear case of Ceasaro-Papism. But it is also a case proving that the rule "what is done is what is right" or "what is acted out is always the definition of belief" is not, per se, true. Just because C'ple 553 was a Caasaro-Papist operation doesn't mean the Church's dogmatic tradition now embraces Caesaro-Papist. It was erroneous and it is happily drifting down the river of unhappy memory. Moreover, if you were to espouse the "Conciliar Fundamentalist" position, then this entire event of Agatho's letter to the Council poses an even greater problem. Because if Papal infallibility were not just a doctrinal error (for goodness sakes, the Orthodox require a renunciation of the Agathon dictum by Catholic converts), but was also explicitly contradicted, as you say, by the Greek fathers at C'ple 681, then they deliberately left an error in the Council, thereby completely falsifying Conciliar Fundamentalism. One simply can't read Agatho's letter as if it were meant to be a non-literal, hyperbolic, or sensational claim. I don't think that option is on the table. Well, there is a, prima facie, contradiction in the Council. The council in one place says all of Rome's predecessors were orthodox, and yet in another place says at 1 of them is a heretic. I think the problem with your position is that you are seeing Agatho's letter as an opinion from the Pope that they just so happen to have left in the Acts. That's not true. The Council praised Agatho's letter with no emendation, correction, or edition, and therefore made the full content of the letter *its very own utterance*. If you fix that mistake, you can at least make it to the platform where this debate is actually happening. I never denied that the Council examined it. In fact, I asserted so! What I said is that they did not *simply* examined it. They read it out loud, examined it, and then concluded that it was of divine origin according to Petrinological terms, something which only echoes the Petrine claims of the document itself. George did come around to admitting so in the normal senatorial fashion when each had to give public utterance to Agatho's letter. That only reinforces my point. I don't think this is tenable. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand, about the Council's claims about the Byzantine Empire - I don't mind holding that to be literal either. Just read it carefully. But it does not cut both ways for a Catholic because we believe that emendation and edition is possible with non-dogmatic elements to Ecumenical Councils.

@@Erick_Ybarra "St. Maximos the Confessor, Pope John VI, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and, well presumably, many others, all defended Honorius. He was venerated as a Saint by Maximos, and he died in the peace of the Church, buried in Rome with honor. The Council condemned Honorius off the quick-jerk sight of "one will in Christ Jesus", when it was clearly the case, as shown by Maximos, that this is not what Honorius was teaching." I'm sorry, but the overwhelming voice of the saints is that Honorius was a heretic. The Holy Spirit guided the minds of the Council of 681 when it condemned Honorius as a heretic, why would the Holy Spirit leave this in the acts? It also didn't stop the Seventh EC from condemning him as a heretic either. It's much more easier to suggest that, of your witnesses, one saint (Maximus) was wrong than to suggest that hundreds of saints were wrong. "Unfortunately, the Council shut away the wisdom of previous Church Fathers who decried the injustice of condemning people who had already passed away in the good graces of the Church." The Fifth Ecumenical Council with its 165 fathers clearly though that it was acceptable. So I don't see how they were ignoring the fathers at all. An Ecumenical Council had decided that it was suitable. "If you read Honorius's letters carefully, it is quite plain that he taught a two will Christology. If you'd like to discuss that in a live setting, I would be willing to do that with you." I'm sorry Erick but the councils are explicit on this manner. Honorius was a heretic. God, who knows the hidden depths of knowledge stored in man's hearts, clearly revealed to the councils that Honorius was a heretic, who also examined the letter carefully. Even if you are able to read orthodoxy in Honorius (which you can probably do for every heretic to ever exist), it doesn't change the fact that he was a heretic. "Just because C'ple 553 was a Caasaro-Papist operation doesn't mean the Church's dogmatic tradition now embraces Caesaro-Papist. It was erroneous and it is happily drifting down the river of unhappy memory." I'm sorry but this seems to me to suggest a mentality of "rules for thee but not for me". Orthodox are to accept Papal Supremacy and Vatican I because of councils like Constantinople 681 but Roman Catholics don't have to accept a council that very much goes against its ecclesiology. "That is not something that endured long, at least for the Catholic Church. Today, there is no canonical justice that would allow that. And rightly so, as it returns to the Patristic wisdom on the matter." I'm not sure why this is the case when several ecumenical councils (5th and 6th) allowed it. Even the Popes of Rome used it. Did not Pope Formusus dig up his deceased predecessor and condemn him? "Moreover, if you were to espouse the "Conciliar Fundamentalist" position, then this entire event of Agatho's letter to the Council poses an even greater problem. Because if Papal infallibility were not just a doctrinal error (for goodness sakes, the Orthodox require a renunciation of the Agathon dictum by Catholic converts), but was also explicitly contradicted, as you say, by the Greek fathers at C'ple 681, then they deliberately left an error in the Council, thereby completely falsifying Conciliar Fundamentalism. One simply can't read Agatho's letter as if it were meant to be a non-literal, hyperbolic, or sensational claim. I don't think that option is on the table." The option is to me the most plausible option. Listen to what Saint Agatho says on the promise of Peter "Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing." In other words, Agatho states that according to Christ the Popes of Rome will never fail to strengthen their brethren, yet the council says that Pope Honorius of Rome did this very thing that Agatho says was impossible to do! The only way I can see getting around this issue is by saying that they didn't take very word of the Pope literally. There seems to me no other alternative explanation that doesn't come across as contrived or anachronistic. "Well, there is a, prima facie, contradiction in the Council. The council in one place says all of Rome's predecessors were orthodox, and yet in another place says at 1 of them is a heretic." Except the council didn't say it, Pope Agatho's letter to the Council said it. You seem to think that every document that is accepted at an Ecumenical Council must have all of its content accepted and approved by the council. On the contrary, the fact that Agatho's letter defends Honorius but the Council fathers condemn him only serves to show that the Council Fathers did not accept as true every word or idea that was contained in the letter. Another example of this would be Sophronius of Jerusalem's letter to Patriarch Sergius, in which the former calls the latter many titles such as 'shepherd of shepherds' and clearly states that he is orthodox, but we now that the council, despite endorsing Sophornius' letter, clearly did not agree with the contents of said letter with regards to Sergius' character. Agatho's letter was not the council, it was a document accessed by the council fathers and judged correct with regards to its dyotheletism and incorrect with regards to the orthodoxy of the previous bishops of Rome. The council judged that the letter of Agatho was correct and God-inspired in its profession of monothelietism and in *that* sense became the voice of the council, not in its declaration that the Popes were always orthodox. "I think the problem with your position is that you are seeing Agatho's letter as an opinion from the Pope that they just so happen to have left in the Acts. That's not true. The Council praised Agatho's letter with no emendation, correction, or edition, and therefore made the full content of the letter *its very own utterance*. If you fix that mistake, you can at least make it to the platform where this debate is actually happening." Well in my view they did correct the letter. The letter as stated declares that all the popes prior to Agatho were orthodox, but the council corrects this by declaring in its definition, and its letters to the Pope and Emperor that Honorius was a heretic. They didn't need to edit what was presented to them as a "suggestions" (Schaff and Wace, NPNF, 2.14, p. 342). Secondly, heretical writings are in the council's acts, such as Honorius' letter, yet they are not considered the utterance of the council, because the council in its acts and words condemns the contents of these heretical letters. Yet that does not mean that they disagreed with *everything* written in those letters. Honorius' letter contains many orthodox statements such as how Christ's flesh is not from heaven but from Mary, was that heretical? Of course not. In a similar fashion they read the letter of Agatho and considered it godly inspired, but that they did not consider every idea or concept in it to be Orthodox dogma, as shown by their correction of the letter's idea that Pope Honorius was orthodox. "I don't think this is tenable. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand, about the Council's claims about the Byzantine Empire - I don't mind holding that to be literal either. Just read it carefully." It makes perfect sense to me and to many others. What you are attempting to do is harmonize what cannot be harmonized. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You want *all* of Agatho's letter to be the voice of the council as well as the declaration of the council that goes against the letter in condemning Pope Honorius, something disallowed by Agatho's letter. I on the other hand can simply say that the council, in its definition and letters, corrected what they found to be wrong in Agatho's letter. "But it does not cut both ways for a Catholic because we believe that emendation and edition is possible with non-dogmatic elements to Ecumenical Councils." Yet the same Spirit by your logic that ensures Papal Infallibility is in the acts is also the same spirit that allows a host of things incompatible with Catholic thinking to be in them in the first place. It doesn't sound correct at all. The Fifth Ecumenical Council with its 165 fathers clearly though that it was acceptable. So I don't see how they were ignoring the fathers at all.

@@stdostoyevsky2931 BeforeI respond to this through typing, would you accept an offer to speak with me on this? I invite people to do so in the video with Austin. If not this, how about a phone conversation ? Anything but typing if possible.

What form of Christianity today believes that the everlasting design of ecclesiology includes the singular headship of St. Peter and his perpetual successors in the Roman episcopate governing the Church as the principle of unity for the universal Church until the end of time? I'll be waiting for the options, my friend :D . I think it would be better to just say, "We don't need to be continuous with the early Church", which is the relaxation one gets from being within Protestantism.

@@Erick_Ybarra That would be the Roman Catholic Church, not the early Church. The early Church held that each community of Christians under the authority of a local bishop IS the fullness of the Church (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans), that all bishops are heirs to the promise of Peter (St. Cyprian, Epistle 26; St. Jerome, Letter 14), no bishop is a universal bishop above all others (St. Gregory the Great, Epistle 20), and that each local church is in charge of its own affairs (7th Council of Carthage, 1st Council of Constantinople, Canon 2). I could go on. While your answer is certainly poetic, I welcome you to actually rise up to the challenge and show papal supremacy and infallibility in action during the patristic era.

@@StoneRobbins Ok, but let's just start with your initial criticism. I gave an "irreducible minimum" of what needs to be shown in the Patristic documentation in order to form a good argument for organic development. I listed 3 or 4 things. You asserted that those 3 or 4 things don't point towards Catholicism. I don't even have to be a Catholic to accept this argument. It is, first and foremost, a working theory. Now, if it is the case that the Patristic witness contains those 3 or 4 things, then what Church other than the Catholic Church is in organic continuity with it? Remember, your argument was that my criteria is faulty to the point I was making.

@@Erick_Ybarra I appreciate your clarification. My point on this end is that the criteria listed is (in my view) much too broad to narrow itself down to the papacy. Primus inter pares could also in theory fit that set of criteria. In the absence of any clear expression of papal supremacy or belief in infallibility, one essentially is left with admitting that these beliefs are developments of the western church, not central to the faith handed to the Apostles.

Go back further. If you study the Jewish roots of the faith you understand the significant of the Keys to Temple and Governance. Jesus gave all the Apostles special gifts but He only gave Peter the Keys. I recommend reading jewish sage Rashi's writings on the significance of the Keys to ancient Israelite kingdoms and the people. CC has unbroken documented evidence for succession of Peter through to Pope Francis. From conception the “Church” was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Judaism and Catholicism were born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier of the Davidic Kingdoms. The Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the Davidic kings were away the steward/vizier was in charge and he wore the keys the King gave him so the citizens knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The keys were then passed onto a successor when that steward died/removed. (Isaiah 22 v15-25) The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, His mother is Gebirah, Peter/successor Popes are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magisterium. Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and continues to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Ancient Templ Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood (which pre-exists the Aaronic priesthood). This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham.

And should we not heed Rome’s position on its own prerogatives if it has received more tradition than the others? The consistent orthodoxy of Rome in the early church is actually a reason to think Rome was also orthodox in its view of its own authority…

Jerusalem had Thirteen Apostles (including Peter and Paul). Antioch and Corinth also had Peter and Paul.

@@lucaspacitti182 Rome had Paul to themselves for several years and marks gospel was dictated there. Also Rome was a communication hub. And people looked to other sees as well. But you can see how Paul’s presence in Rome gave the west a more Pauline character while Johns extended stay in Greece made the Greek church more Jonhanine

@@jebbush2527 Yes but Rome doesn’t seem to be aware of it’s prerogatives for quite some time ie the arguments Rome makes about deposing nesotorius are not based on universal supremacy. All the elevations of Rome point to other factors like it being the imperial city, having tradition, church canons. They don’t say there is a unique office located in Rome that could be moved elsewhere that has certain dogmatic properties. V1 goes the other way and explicitly rejects the idea that the popes authority is based or founded on anything accept the office.

@@esoterico7750 Rome had Paul for only some 5 years, most of which he was arrested. Jerusalem had the 12 Apostles for 7 years. It's not a question of "larger body of Tradition".

I have to say that I understand and sympathize with your perspective. Catholics do this. However, is Orthodoxy without fault or any semblance of incoherence?

The Pope says what he says. He has never altered doctrine. Orthodox have no authority, Jesus gave the Keys of Authority and Governance to Peter only.

This is called being an apologist and it is not unique to Catholicism.

I considered Orthodoxy, but I can't identify the Orthodox Church. The autocephalous churches don't make claims to infallibility - i.e. a local patriarch can teach heresy. And the way to settle such disputes, an ecumenical council, has not occurred in close to 1000 years now because the Orthodox theologians disagree on what makes a council binding. In fact, Eastern Orthodox logic makes me think I could be Oriental Orthodox and the two are not in communion with each other. And Russia is using the same argument Greece used in 1054 to call Moscow the 3rd Rome, leading to a schism in current year. TL;DR The grass is not greener on the Orthodox side.

@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for the reply. As we know, nothing is perfect. I think the use of 'coherent' is a good word because i think it's the coherence of Orthodox theology that draws me moreso than any "faults" of Catholicism

When all things are considered.

@@Erick_Ybarra Let me know how are you want to communicate, to set up our discussion on your RU-vid channel on the papacy.

''milimeters'' when going through the historical record (that's what I understood)

@@mjramirez6008 which isn't a whole lot.

Pope Anicletus chose to maintain a diversity of practices on the day of celebrating Easter. However, the Church moved into a direction where she wanted to consolidate. That is very normal. The quarto-decimans, i.e., those who followed the strict tradition of Ephesus/Asia, such as St. Polycarp, were soon deemed schismatics, especially since they condemned those who did not celebrate on the 14th day of Nisan precisely, as well as imposing other Judaizing norms upon the Church.

St Anatolius, Paschal Canon, 8, circa 270: "not acquiescing, so far as regards this matter, with the authority of some, namely the successors of Peter and Paul..." On the Quartodeciman faction, suppressed at the Councils of Arles and Nicea.

@@Erick_Ybarra actually, it was "Pope" Victor who threatened to excommunicate the churches who held to Quartodecimanism: “Victor, who presided at Rome tried to cut off from the common unity as heterodox all the Asian dioceses…announcing the absolute excommunication of all the brethren there. The bishops sharply reprimanded Victor. Among them was Irenaeus…not to excommunicate entire churches of God for following ancient traditions: ‘Some think that they ought to fast for one day, other for two or even more…. Such variation in observance did not begin in our own day but much earlier in the time of our predecessors…. Among these also were the presbyters before Soter who headed the church over which you now preside - I mean Anicetus, Pius, Telesphorus, & Xystus. They themselves did not observe it, nor their followers…. Anicletus could not persuade Polycarp not to observe it, since he had always done so with John, our Lord’s disciple, and the other heads of the apostles who he knew’” (Eusebius’ Church History, Book 5.25). So, as you can see, Victor was wrong.

@@BornAgainRN Who challenged that Pope St. Victor was the one who threatened to excommunicate the churches who held to the Quartodeciman position?

@@Erick_Ybarra according to Eusebius: Bishop Polycrates held to the Quartodeciman position. The bishops of Asia also held to this position & was threatened with excommunication by him, which was held previously by Polycarp. And Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp had "always done so with John, our Lord's disciple, and the other apostles he knew." Polycrates also wrote that "Philip, one of the twelve apostles" along with his two of his aged, virgin daughters, and a third daughter who rests in Ephesus, Melito of Sardis, and several other bishops "all these kept the 14th day of Nisan as the start of the paschal festival...but if I write their names, there will be many." So, not only were those who held to the Quartodeciman position older, but also more numerous. So, again, "Pope" Victor was wrong.

🙄

Imagine denying it

And your reasons for your rejection are … I expect no reply from this apparent troll

It's easier to defend catholicism than to defend fake Christiandom born yesterday.😂

The Truth is not always easy to defend, but in the end it always shines through. Catholicism goes the distance, as Erick convincingly demonstrates.

@@tbojai truth is hard to defend when you know nothing.

Yes, but an abridged version