Defending the Papacy Against the Orthodox, Sedevacantists, and Hyperpapalists (Guest: Erick Ybarra)

[@Floridiansince94]

I am an avid reader. I am also a two year catholic convert- so I am reading lots of catholic books! Love the books of the Saints!

[@TheEdzy25]

A very good read is Russia and the universal church. Goes thru the errors of EO. Touches on slavophile idealogy. Its from a russian orthodox conversion to Catholicism.

[@consecratedsoul]

Would love to see Dr Peter Kwasniewski and Eric Ybarra discuss the Papacy.

[@Tabletop274]

Honestly, a lot of infra-Catholic debates have gotten really poisoned. I don't know if people can really (or are willing) to sit down and have a serious argument about these matters.

[@yourboieb4477]

Any video with Erick Ybarra in it is gold

[@troubledguest7401]

I want to thank both of you for your charity and understanding towards sedevacantists. It is really appreciated. And thanks for having this discussion, it was illuminating.

[@Floridiansince94]

I am looking forward to reading this book!

[@paultran-b6r]

Love Erick's Filioque.

[@PrayEveryDay]

wow that's a clippable segment Erick elaborating on understanding the papacy in relation to the body of The Church at 1:01

[@uchihaitachi5726]

Ngl, when I heard people complain about Pope Francis, I'm in my head thinking, "Good thing we aren't living during the times when Popes had protestutes" or "Good thing we don't have a Pope that is bringing in protestutes into the Vatican in modern day"

[@MMichiganSalveRegina]

Lost me at the comparison of JPII pontificate as a mercedes benz. Can't we all agree at this point that the problems didn't start at francis (or benedict, or jpii, ...)

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Oh I don't think the JP2 Pontificate was a Mercedes Benz. I was using an illustration for people who might feel that way. I've documented many issues with JP2 in my publications.

[@erics7992]

Thank you. The pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not Mercedes. They had a nice public face but they were absolutely disastrous inside the Church. JP2's World Youth Day personal celebrity based papacy was quite frankly a train wreck because while he went globe trotting around the world in front of adoring crowds a gigantic number of problems were terribly metastasizing within the Church. Benedict XVI was an extraordinarily weak pope who ended up quitting on us. If you don't like Francis then there is only one person to blame for his arrival in Rome.

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

JPII, like Francis, was a total fraud spawned in deepest hell.

[@paulthomas955]

All I have to say is ASSISI conference!

[@paulmorse2977]

Eric made a very strong point when he said that if Francis is not the Pope, since none of the hierarchy have said that, then all the hierarchy would be wrong. - Bishop Schneider’s argument. I did give a tiny thought to Archbishop Vigano’s position that the validity of Francis’ papacy is in serious doubt. So does that count? Maybe there are several other bishops who hold the same view, but are not saying it publicly.

[@littlerock5256]

What Vigano said the validity of Francis’ papacy is basically what Bishop Sanborn says.

[@dlw3425]

I’ve struggled with questions about Catholicism vs Orthodoxy lately. I understand that Christ established hierarchy in His Church and that Peter was the first pope. I wonder, though, if the Orthodox aren’t right in saying that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals and should not be elevated to a much higher rank. Could it be that God is demonstrating to the Western Church the problems of giving the pope too much authority? What is God trying to teach us? There is no man made solution to the current problems in the Church. We can turn our faces to Him, fasting and praying in repentance or we can waste time griping and debating man-made solutions while darkness infiltrates the Church until there is only a tiny candle burning.

[@didymussumydid9726]

The hildebrandtian revolution was a calamity

[@paulmorse2977]

I would say the Pope is only the first among equals in terms of teaching (including dogma) which is why the Church has developed dogma mostly through Councils. But in terms of governance, the buck stops at him. Problems have arisen because popes have used their powers of governance without humility and respect for the teaching responsibilities of their fellow bishops. For example, Francis appoints Fernandez as head of the DDF, and then Fernandez goes ahead and tries to use governance authority to change the Church’s teaching - without consultation with, or agreement from, the bishops.

[@JaimeAlvarez-r9u]

At that point you would not have the power of binding and loosening in matt(16:19) specifically stated too peter no one else.

[@dlw3425]

@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u I believe that Christ gave that power (binding/loosing) to all the apostles in Mt 18:18, no? He gave the keys to Peter but the power to bind and loose to all apostles/bishops.

[@paulmorse2977]

@@dlw3425 I have always heard it taught this way. Certainly in the sacrament of penance, this interpretation is true. Also Luke 24:46-49 seems to imply that all the apostles shared this authority. The governance responsibility to DECLARE what is bound or loosed for the whole church I would agree rests with the see of Peter.

[@rickmiller2042]

Mostly agree with you both. I still find Erick defends the errors of the current and past popes to a greater degree than I find justified. However, since I completely agree that a Papal authority is needed through history to keep the ship headed in the right direction, not sure I could articulate a clear answer to the messes.

[@ezequielayala5685]

I think that we don’t believe or give enough credit to Jesus Christ words on Mathew 16:19 !

[@kennethwalker9354]

I agree. People simply do not trust Jesus Christ when they see apparent Church scandals. They see the storm and the waters reverberate all around them and hit the panic button of despair and faithlessness when Christ is there with them in the boat.

[@steveempire4625]

If the pope cannot teach formal heresy, does this not violate his free will? What if the pope wishes to do so? Will a miracle of God stop him? Will be struck down? How is that not a violation of free will when you say the man, not the office, cannot teach heresy? Doesn't it make more sense that the man loses his office upon teaching formal heresy? That the office is free from teaching heresy, but the man is not?

[@JackGordone]

A valid distinction: if Cardinal Fernandez dynamites a house, he can be arrested for destruction of property. If, on the other hand, he digs a trench near the foundation of the other fellow's house but still on Fernandez's own property, his goal may be the eventual destruction of the neighbors' place, but the authorities really can't put the cuffs on the cardinal....

[@ThomasMulcahy-f1i]

How is it possible that Cardinal Fernandez is Doctrinal Chief? Why did Pope Francis recruit him?

[@didymussumydid9726]

Because bergoglio is a monstrum horibile

[@Laj-t9k]

Hatchet man? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

Because hell has overcome the entity now led by Antipope Francis. Therefore, just as Francis can’t possibly be an actual pope, the entity he leads can’t possibly be the actual Catholic Church.

[@erics7992]

Can we drop the whole Honorius thing please? That was like a one time thing in two thousand years. And it was soooo long ago. I don't know what Honorius was doing and neither does Erick Ybarra. All I know is that Honorius was pope at an extraordinarily difficult moment in history (625-638) when the followers of Muhammad first stormed out of the desert to conquer Palestine and Syria. The emperor Heraclius was trying to hold his empire together and put an end to Christian infighting and unfortunately got into theology to try to solve the problem and ended up creating a bigger mess. Honorius unfortunately endorsed the enterprise (at the instigation of Sergius who by the way was Patriarch of Constantinople and one of a long line of heretical imperial stooges to occupy that post) to shut everyone up and seemed to fall for the argument that to do otherwise than he did would be tantamount to endorsing Nestorianism. The whole anathema thing is based on a letter written by Leo II almost fifty years after Honorius was dead.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Actually, it is pretty massive. Akin to Paul of Samasota, Apollinarius, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. In other words, the Church had a canon for the condemned. A catalog of those who fell under anathema. Honorius was deemed the confirmed of the Monothelite heresy and so his anathematization was viewed as the Church's solemn act of redeeming itself from the filth of poisonous error. The first anathema put towards Honorius was actually not Leo II but the 6th council which issued an "eternal anathema" to Honorius. Of course, Pope Leo II ratified it. This Honorian anathema is recited at the next 3 ecumenical councils as a rehearsal of the Church's victory over Monotheletism. Even if we can spare Honorius the guilt, the Church for centuries used this time to demonstrate its belief in a serious Papal failure. Not something to "drop", in your words.

[@erics7992]

@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for your explanation. And you're right Leo was confirming the decrees of the Constantinople II in his letter As a side note if you read Honorius' letter to Sergius on which all of this is based he actually condemns Eutyches and Nestorius in it. His theological knowledge is highly questionable and his condemnation of those who opposed what is called Monotheletism as 'Nestorian' tells me that he was probably repeating words someone else, likely Sergius of Constantinople (that's right all of my Greek brothers out there this is another one of the twelve million errors that have come out of Constantinople) put into his mouth. I am not defending what he did but to compare him with someone who consciously originated a heresy like Arius and Nestorius is a bridge that goes about a thousand miles too far especially since unlike those two Honorius never had the chance either to defend himself or retract what he had written. As Leo said his fault lay in that he tried to take a shortcut around the truth in order to preserve peace. But isn't that what just about ALL of our twentieth and twenty first century popes, very much including our supposed Mercedes Benz popes, have repeatedly and endlessly done over the last hundred years? They have repeatedly placed an illusory 'peace' ahead of correct doctrine. Even if they themselves did not directly endorse error as Honorius unfortunately seems to have let himself do here they have certainly consciously permitted others in their charge to do so time and time again and over and over again.

[@AdithiaKusno]

Min 55:00 We can't blindly follow a spiritual leader. That's why St Peter told the high priest that he must follow God rather than pleasing men. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As a Byzantine Catholic at Second Lyon and Florence the councils ratified that divine rights of Eastern patriarchs. We profess neither bodiless nor headless Church. We profess Church with head and body. Christ is our head and the body has three levels: universal, regional, and local. Unless it's universal gathering then it can't be at universal level but must be lower. Ravenna document was signed by all including Moscow. I recommend my Latin brothers and sisters to learn from the Eastern lung as well. In the West the three levels collapsed into one. In the East we only accept the universal level when it's exercised at universal gatherings of all bishops. Unless that happens the authority is not universal but regional to Latin rite alone. This is what Second Lyon and Florence profess. Protestants fall into Sola Scriptura, Sedevacantists fall into Sola Traditio, and Hyper-papalists fall into Sola Papa. The Catholic Church deny emphasizing only one at the expense of all three: Tradition, Scripture, and Papacy. Because all three are consubstantially united then each can't be separated from another.

[@consecratedsoul]

Underrated comment

[@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv]

Why can't the few remaining Bishops elect a pontiff if the sedes are right? Our Lord didn't say how big the church would be be in the end

[@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv]

We only started out with 12 apostles

[@rx0102]

All of the attempts so far have resulted in lunatics, cults, & even greater heresies.

[@rx0102]

user-kb4dv1ud3f The Palmarian heretics, "Pope Michael I," & "Pope Boniface X" (he's got a website), come to mind. I don't think any of the 10 or so 21st century claimants were elected by bishops, but remember that the method of election of a Pope has varied much historically, & the exceptional circumstances of an alleged empty chair with no hierarchy. Sedevacantist bishops, seeing how poorly these attempts have turned out, wisely do not imitate them. Archbishop Thuc seems to have been so disillusioned at having merely consecrated a few people who later became antipopes that he reconciled with Rome.

[@rx0102]

53:25 "The extremity at which this whole papal theory is falsified is when the Pope...obliges the church to damnation, or at least calls us to sin or offend God." Sedevacantists but also traditional Catholics would absolutely say this has happened, if not with the obligation of obedience to V2 or the Novus Ordo, then with Francis. I would like @Erick_Ybarra to dialogue with such individuals or clarify himself, because I don't think he meant to imply trads might as well become sedevacantists or apostates. I second another commenter's suggestion of speaking with Kwasniewski, even if he's simultaneously a little soft yet radical (wants to undermine V1 lol).

[@sheri6089]

Why does noone mention (or "scratch their heads at") the pachamama incident?

[@clo8862]

Im not a huge fan of michael lofton but he tries explaining what happened with the “ pachamama “ incident and gives a good explanation on it on reason and theology .

[@CGAPU]

Does he deal with the Cadaver Synod on his book?

[@DownBerkshireBorders]

Great video : many thanks! A sensible sober approach to the Papacy. I remember how Pope St John Paul II called for dialogue and reflection on how the Papacy can be renewed and articulated in a form that while respecting the essence of the office can also divest itself of any historically conditioned nonessential forms through which it has been exercised - I think it was in “Ut Unum Sint”. I think that we have had a couple of centuries in which quite extraordinary men filled the role. The danger has been, as a result, to almost sacralise the person or personality of the man who exercises the office so that even their personal likes and tastes have been taken by some as somehow normative for the Church. The present state of confusion is emblematic of that tendency and perhaps even caused partially by that. Many thanks for such a helpful interview

[@williammcenaney1331]

Pope Francis may not deny what the Church has always taught about the death penalty. But there's still a practical problem. In Evangelism Vitae, Pope John Paul II taught that a state shouldn't use it when there's another way to protect society from the criminal. On the other hand, some capital criminals still murder other prisoners and even some prison guards. I wrote. to a lifer for 14.5 years. Before we "met," he lived in the then securest federal prison in the United States. In that prison, he handed a knife to another prisoner who stabbed a guard with it. Dignity makes someone worthy of honor, respect, or both. God dignified you when he created you in his image.You receive what I call "moral dignity" when you practice virtue. You decrease that dignity when you sin. I'll always have the dignity that I got when God created me in his image. But I could lose all my moral dignity, die without it, and go to hell. God doesn't think, "Hmm, this criminal still has the dignity I blessed him with when I created. him. Maybe I should let him into heaven when he deserves hell."

[@joecastillo8798]

We must remember, the Spirit of truth: John 16:13 , will always guide the Church. Moreover: ▪︎1Timothy 3:15 15. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is "The Church of The Living God", the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. God bless.

[@dr.davidhoward3179]

It's Dogma we focus on, not the Pope.

[@monty2020-i5d]

I am still waiting for my Church to explain this to me, this needs to be clarified: Leviticus 18:22 has been translated in common English versions as: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. And when you’re an abomination you try to obscure that bit of scripture. What would St Catherine of Siena say?

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

It's directed at males

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

It’s actually translated as, Lev18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

[@joecastillo8798]

The Catholic Church will never, accept homosexual acts or marriages, as clearly taught by the Magisterium. Recognizing their sinful state, the Church our Lord built in Peter, rejects all homosexual acts and by Its unique divine power, given directly by God, prays and provides blessings for the sole purpose of asking God to strengthen the sinners who are struggling with such behavior, in order to be free of its eternal consequences. Just like Jesus who brought Judas as an Apostle, but did not expel him, allowing him to exert his freewill, preferring worldly gains; one of those being the infamous 30 pieces of silver, which was the reason that led him to betray our Lord, just like many "Judases" do today. God bless.

[@BarbaPamino]

Try defending the blatant changes in doctrine by the papacy then see how you can defend the papacy.

[@SaltyPalamite]

I am not a sede, but Sammons' claiming that Bergoglio MUST be the pope, otherwise "apostolic liceity" is compromised, is a weak argument. There have been dozens of antipopes in the past. Does Sammons think that modernity has some special protection against an antipope?

[@CrisisMag]

The problem is that we don’t have any claims of a competing pope supported by Cardinals/bishops. It’s not the same as past situations: today we have but one man claiming to be pope, and he is supported by essentially the entire apostolic college. Thus, if Bergoglio is not the pope, it undermines the entire apostolic college, which is not the case with multiple men making papal claims and backed by competing groups of Cardinals/bishops.

[@SaltyPalamite]

@@CrisisMag Again, the issue is whether Bergoglio MUST be the pope. Eric seems to imply that if Bergoglio is NOT the pope, then this would be akin to Church defectibility (or a blow to "apostolic liceity," as he put it.). I pointed out that Eric's stance is a non sequitur and ahistorical because there have been dozens of antipopes in the past, and that we should not consider that the present is immune from that situation. You responded that, well, other antipopes involved rival claimants to the Petrine chair, and that we do not have that now. There are several problems with this. First, there may not be strictly speaking "rival claimants," but we DID have an unprecedented situation of the first ten years of Bergoglio's office that that there was a living "pope emeritus." Benedict XVI did not return to the College of Cardinals. He still held the title of "pope," dressed in white, lived in the Vatican, and retained his papal name--Benedict XVI, not Cdl Ratzinger. Sure, this may not be squarely on point with past antipope situations, but it is bizarre and unprecedented, in the same way that Bergoglio's purported authentic magisterium (death penalty, AL, TC, FS) is bizarre and unprecedented. Second, even if we put aside my first point, there also is the issue that Bergoglio almost undoubtedly is a manifest, material heretic. (He's probably also a formal heretic, but let's put that aside.) Now, the Church does not have a specific teaching re: what happens in the case of an heretical pope. E.g., does he keep presiding as an heresiarch, or is he automatically deposed. St Robert Bellarmine, a Church Doctor, and probably Church's foremost theologian on the topic of papal heresy, offered five options/positions on what would be the consequence. By all accounts, he embraced the the first and the fifth positions, which seem to overlap and practically be the same position stated in different ways. That position is that the pope is automatic deposed in case of heresy. Many, maybe most, have said that the automatic deposition position is consistent with the pope still appearing to hold office, but be the subject of a later declaration by the Church that he is or was a heretic. (It's is not a "judgment," per se, but a declaration of fact by the the Church.). So yes, given Bergoglio's heretical teachings, we may be in a situation right now, where Bergoglio is not the pope, and this position is consistent with a position on papal herery embraced by St. Robert. Now, it may be the case that both of my points are wrong, misguided, etc. Fine. But they are not OBVIOUSLY so. And my overall aim here is to dispute Eric's contention that Bergoglio right now MUST be the pope. I concede that one can legitimately claim that Bergoglio is PROBABLY or MOST LIKELY the pope. But, for the reasons I stated above, it is not at all the case that Bergoglio MUST be the pope.

[@kennethwalker9354]

@@SaltyPalamite Personally, I'd be more concerned that who is Pope is was traditionally known to be of dogmatic fact (i.e. not a maybe) once Rome definitively confirmed that the Supreme Pontiff for the Catholic world to follow was Pope X. In Church history, publically known sedevacantists were excommunicated and in the case of Pius IX, publically condemned to hell, because they were no longer considered Catholic (i.e. Old Catholics wherein a group of laypeople and clerics accused the Pope and Magisterium of going into heresy and thereby implicitly stating the Church defected). Another thing to consider is that refusal to submit to the Pope is the very definition of being in schism with it too, traditionally having a penalty of excommunication and in the moral theology manuals considered mortal sin if it was formal schism (i.e. McHugh and Callen give a low bar for being in Mortal Sin regarding schism, meaning that it is easy to be in formal schism). And look, I get it, there are many people out there unhappy with the current pontificate. But the response by a lot of traditionalists and conservatives is totally novel and in the past was severely condemned, but you don't see this side, because many of the popular KZbinrs engage in pope-bashing and magisterial bashing like it's old hat without canonical and moral consequences - and over time, a type of general cultural apathy follows.

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

Actual popes must be actually Catholic. Jorge Bergoglio has abundantly proven that he rejects actual Catholicism. Therefore, he can’t possibly be an actual pope. One cannot be the visible head of a body of which one is not a member. Note that it requires absolutely no juridical authority to recognize this reality, just as one need not be a coroner to recognize a stinking, rotting body precisely as dead. Moreover, Bergoglio isn’t just a “bad father.” Rather, he isn’t a father at all.

[@TedSeeber]

One big change I am finding, that came on slowly between 1950-2020 , is the concept of binary truth. Computers have changed the definition of truth.

[@MMichiganSalveRegina]

Stupidest comment I've ever read

[@TedSeeber]

​@user-kb4dv1ud3f Samd way you judge anything else- by testing if it is true or false. Binary.

[@TedSeeber]

​user-kb4dv1ud3f and yet my original comment waa due to "truth as shades of grey" from Thomas Aquinas.

[@TedSeeber]

@user-kb4dv1ud3f if you cannot understand normal ways of providing context....try listening to the video again.

[@TedSeeber]

user-kb4dv1ud3f I am telling the truth. The world is binary and digital. Shades of Grey are for con artists that want to justify evil.

[@nicholasdasilva9]

I would listen to this pontiff…he is exposing another form of logic in catholicism, the logic of gospel, of loving integration of the faith with lived, pastoral experience.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Nonsense

[@kennethwalker9354]

You both sound learned and appear sincere, but there wasn't a mention of Catholic principles (specific to the topic) you are using rather than one's own experience and study which in the end amounts to private opinion and actually dangerous to publically disseminate. It may not change your position, but there are both pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents that gives the average person out there a framework from which to see where the other sides are coming from and where there is departure regarding how to approach papal documents and the issue of apparent contradictions without resorting to taking to illicit or anti-Catholic positions done unknowingly. The difference being at each step of the way, you can state - this is what the Church teaches magisterially (and why is it even important to consider it's role) when the average Catholic encounters apparent contradictions - minimizing (or at least lessening) the individual private judgment and curtailing one's bias and potential emotionalism (i.e. bitterness or outright anger). I am not blaming here, because this free-style discourse is what most KZbinr and Catholic media persona are resorting to, whether they be of the popular Catholic layperson or cleric or not.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

we are in a different era

[@IOSALive]

Crisis Magazine, You're so cool! Let's be friends and have fun!