The Papacy: Epistemological Considerations Between Catholics and Orthodox (Khomyakov vs. Vatican)

This is the 4th lecture in the Patreon Course on the Papacy available for 3rd-tier patrons and part 2 of the lecture on Chapter 3 "Epistemological Considerations." I decided to post this for free viewing on KZbin because the subject of epistemological and authority paradigms gives my book uniqueness from prior works on the Papacy vis-à-vis the Orthodox.
Join CCT Patreon
www.patreon.com/classicalchristianthought
My Books
erickybarra.co...
Twitter
/ erickybarra3
Instagram
/ classicalchristianthought
TikTok
/ theclassicalchristian
Facebook

[@tonyl3762]

Catholicism also affirms the sensus fidei/fidelium but not to the exclusion of a visible, hierarchical Magisterium.

[@TheEdzy25]

The book Russia and the Universal Church, is a very good read that touches a lot of these subjects.

[@aeonsend]

I recently watched the discussion between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Fr. Steven DeYoung on Sola Scriptura and I was surprised at Fr. DeYoung’s angle in defending infallibility in Orthodoxy. Fr. DeYoung emphasized the inner working of the Holy Spirit, but downplayed ecclesial authority, a la Khomyakov it seems. He even stated we can only know for certain if something was infallibly the Holy Spirit after the whole church has accepted the thing, a posteriori. I was scratching my head thinking, “by refusing to bring in the authority of the church as part of your defense, you are leaving yourself wide open for Dr. Ortlund to attack.” And he did just that. This video was so helpful to understand where he, and a lot of Orthodox I listen to, are coming from. Very enlightening. Thanks Erick!

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks for listening. I actually brought Fr De Young into this lecture at the end for a brief moment and his exchange with Ortlund. You are correct to make a connection to Khomyakov

[@marteld2108]

@@Erick_YbarraAre you Roman Catholic? I tried to go to your website but its a chinese website (???)

[@dynamic9016]

Much love n respect for this video..Insightful. 🙏

[@jameskellaher7070]

All the nice sounding Orthodox talk about an intimate union between God and man guiding the church as a whole and not having need for a magisterium is belied by the fact that Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and their attendant major schisms all originated in the East and required Papal intervention to maintain orthodoxy. It’s just another variant of the Protestant idea of each person with their Bible and the guidance of the Spirit. What the history of the divisions and schisms in Protestantism and Eastern Christianity show is that people of presumably good will all using the same sources and premises will come to vastly different conclusions on major points of doctrine. Even in modern orthodoxy the no small issue of rebaptism being disagreed upon is a major red flag. If there was no mechanism in God’s church to settle a doctrinal dispute there would no way to judge what was correct or harmful to one’s relationship with God. Scripture tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that furthermore it is built upon the rock of Peter.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Exactly!

[@MadreTheotokos]

Amen. This is why my wife and I, through God’s mercy, have come back to Rome after leaving for Orthodoxy for the past several years. We saw these issues up close and personal. While we deeply repent of leaving Rome, the silver lining is now we have the lived experience help others not fall into this high level deception that many are tempted into as an alternative to the insanity taking place in the Catholic Church. Orthodoxy is beautiful on the outside, but the deeper you go, the more rot you will find…

[@Codreanu_Prezent]

​@MadreTheotokos Brother how then do you view Francis? Are the things he does and say not heretical at times?

[@jameskellaher7070]

@@Codreanu_PrezentFirstly , I think a lot of the narrative that Francis is heretical is driven by the untrustworthy mainstream media who try to push their liberal agenda to give the appearance of the Church changing their teaching. However, let us assume that Francis is just a bad pope and perhaps even personally heretical. This is not a theological stretch since Pope Honorius was condemned by two ecumenical councils and his successors as being heretical. In the case of Honorius however, the heresy was contained in a private letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople not a magisterial teaching for the whole church. Thus, the Catholic understanding is that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in his formal magisterium. Outside of the magisterium, a pope can be a terrible pope, heretical in his private person, and may even make non magisterial heretical comments publicly. However, it is because of the divine promise of protection when he does formally teach on faith and morals that we owe him submission and obedience in all matters but sin.

[@Deathbytroll]

I'm not Orthodox so take this as you will but protestantism arose in the west and came about from scholastic ideas until we got so far removed from apostolic Christianity that mainstream churches including the Catholic Church are now wrestling with obvious heresy. So the idea of Papal guarantees in a social utility sense seem to fall flat

[@tonyl3762]

Similar to Fr Staniloae, ever heard of this Dr Chris Castaldo making rounds on KZbin psychoanalyzing why Protestants become Catholic? He also point to the desire for certainty and an aversion to subjectivism and emotionalism (with Newman as case study). Not sure how one can escape that except in Catholic Church though.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

I would love to talk to him. Can we find him and put me in touch?

[@tonyl3762]

@@Erick_Ybarra "Chris Castaldo is the Lead Pastor at New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois, and is a fellow at the Center for Pastor Theologians."

[@ggarza]

Excellent presentation! Slavic theologians during the Imperial Russian Era (18th century to early 20th century) were writing in defense of the rule of the Russian Orthodox Church by an external lay delegate of the Tzar called the Chief Procurator. Peter the Great in 1711 abolished ecclesiastical autocephaly by dissolving the office of the Patriarch and replacing it in 1721 with the Most Holy All Governing Synod. This council was modeled after the National Governing Councils of the Lutheran Churches of Protestant Kingdoms on the Continent. It was comprised of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and Exarchs within the Russian Imperial orbit. The Chief Procurator was assisted by 12 members of the Governing Synod. His duties included managing all the internal affairs of the Church including spreading the Gospel, fighting superstitions, and establishing and controlling seminaries for training priests. The Chief Procurator also administered oaths to clerics which included a promise to report all seditious confessions to the Chief Procurator. The Chief Procurator ruled the Russian Orthodox Church on behalf of the Tzar from 1721 to 1917.

[@user-ck5pc3vh5n]

"Khomyakov" (Хомяков) would be pronounced as something like "Jomyácov" from Spanish (which I think would be the closest Russian pronunciation for you if you do speak Spanish, Mr. Ybarra). Then for "Andrzej Walicki" (because he is Polish), his name would be pronounced like "Anzrey Valitski", or just "Andrey Valitski" because "C" in Polish is pronounced as "ts" together as 2 consonants. I know it is unsolicited, but I am sure you would appreciate this. "Sabornast" means "conciliarity" as well, which is different from "togetherness" slightly in Russian (which "togetherness" would be translated as "Yedeenyeniye" as a broad term). But good work otherwise for presenting a Catholic defense against the "Orthodox" heresy.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you! I am sorry to say that I did not spend sufficient care in getting the correct pronunciation of these names. Will certainly take note! As for "sobornost", I am not wholly sure why I had said "togetherness", although I am almost certain that it has come up as such in the literature I have read. It could be that it derives from the Russian word for "gathering". I would slightly disagree that one could say "Conciliarity". I know Fr Bulgakov defined it in this way but that was because he knew that the meaning of the term surpasses the lexical meaning of the term, which is what I was aiming for in the lecture. To be fair to me, when I had the care to define it in my book, I do so in the following way (p. 47): "The concept of sobornost gets peculiar thematic architecture from the writings of Khomyakov, and his understanding of it can be defined as 'the combination of freedom and unity of many persons on the basis of their common love for the same absolute values'. Generally speaking, Khomyakov's vision of the ideal human society is one marked by a community of individuals who are freely moved by a mutual love for each other, and whose principle of unity and good arise from the internal motion to desire the same end. To have a society where there are the lords and rulers over a lower class is not an ideal societal unity since the lower class is denied its freedom and the rulers are an external force acting upon it."

[@user-ck5pc3vh5n]

@@Erick_Ybarra I was only scrupulous of the word "соборность" (sabornast) since Google translate had translated it as "conciliarity", and "sabor" in Russian means "a council", or "a gathering". It might be one of those things in the language which cannot be translated into English. I have been trying to study Russian for quite sometime as a Catholic, which is why I have been scrupulous with that for example. I wish more Catholics would get involved with Eastern Europe and "Orthodoxy", and learn Russian to try to evangelize the Eastern Slavs since they would be a great ally with reuniting from the Schism of the Hellenics. I hope to do this some day, and you are a true inspiration, and that more people could do this.

[@TheEdzy25]

​@@user-ck5pc3vh5n well some slavs are already Catholic, slovenia, croatia, slovakia, the czechs, and even the Hungarians. I spent time, in central/eastern Europe. A lot of has to do with nationalism, which "orthodoxy" is national and state churches. You are right, we have to start engaging with them more. It is a very interesting part of the world. And a lot of history behind why some countries are "orthodox" and others Catholic. The book Russia and the Universal Church, has been one of the best books to really understand the Russian/slavic mindset and history.

[@user-ck5pc3vh5n]

@@TheEdzy25 I know, but we need to emphasize our Faith to those that read in Cyrillic more often. After all, we venerate Saints Cyril and Methodius for their evangelistic efforts and help them return to the Catholic Church. Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych is one of my favorite for this reason, and Blessed Leonid Federov is also a marvel.

[@kylecityy]

Hey I'm protestant on this issue. I'm not familiar with the modern scholarly books who would disagree with the historical case for the papacy. Could you point me to any modern academic writings besides Edward siecienski book on it, or would you say reading someone like edward denny "papalism" from the past is probably the best source on that side of thought?

[@thenewhope123]

Hey Erick. Could you recommend some books on the Catholic view of authority(Scripture+Tradition)?

[@Erick_Ybarra]

HI! I would begin with an introductory work entitled "Faith Comes from What is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology" by Dr. Lawrence Feingold. After that, I'd recommend two more complex books. The first is "Tradition and the Church" (George Agius) and the second is "On Divine Tradition" ( S J John Baptist Cardinal Franzelin)

[@thenewhope123]

@@Erick_Ybarra Thanks!

[@alexandregb566]

What is the part 1?

[@IpCrackle]

“The Church is not an authority, just as God is not an authority and Christ is not an authority, since authority is something external to us.” Imminence at the expense of transcendence. Textbook Modernism.

[@IpCrackle]

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” - Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

[@iwansaputra1890]

gnostic 101

[@MB-zn9vg]

@@iwansaputra1890exactly what I thought

[@tonyl3762]

Marxism/Communism also believed that unity and freedom could be achieved without the State eventually. Same kind of ideas were swirling around politically at the same time as Komyakov. Infiltrated Orthodoxy too apparently, which is weird considering the Caesaro-papist history. Every extreme but the truth....

[@Joeonline26]

Well that's tonights sleeping aid sorted

[@Codreanu_Prezent]

Brother you should review the Orthodox book by Timothy Ware named 'The Orthodox Church.' I would love to see you respond to the claims of the first pages. I am still indecisive of Rome or the Orthodox.

[@Roman_ROCMP]

Why join Francis? Don't you know that he publicly teaches many heresies which invalidates Vatican 1 claims making papism not true? He teaches that sodomy can be blessed, he claims that "death penalty is contrary to the Gospel", he believes in hopeful universalism with his statements about "empty" hell... to name the few! - this is not Apostolic Christianity.

[@Codreanu_Prezent]

I thought the Orthodox believed in Holy Tradition? Unlike the protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura.

[@Roman_ROCMP]

The latin doctrine of the papacy is nothing but pure sophistry. Sophistry is roughly defined as "a worldview denying the possibility of knowing the absolute truth". The latin assembly basically claims that "knowing the absolute truth is only possible through the infallible ex cathedra teachings of the Roman Pontiff". What are those and how do we determine which ones are indeed "infallible" and "ex cathedra"? Is there a list? Oh, there isn't one. What's the "infallibly ex cathedra" established criteria for determining which papal statements are indeed "infallible" and "ex cathedra"? Oh, you see, there isn't any also. So, in the papist system the clear impossibility of knowing the absolute truth becomes readily apparent. Papism leaves you in the epistemic position of *sophistry* and not Christianity. Papism is certainly neither Holy - with their blessings of sodomy; nor is it Catholic - for rejecting the conciliar approach of the first millennium; it is most definitely not Apostolic - e.g. apostles didn't teach "hopeful universalism" that Francis does; and with all those sspx, sedevacantists and novus ordo sects - papism is clearly not One. P.S. Yeah, also, if one can't see that Francis-Bergolio doesn't provide anybody with "epistemic certainty", "clarity", and "preservation of doctrine", there's obviously not an intellectual problem at hand, but a spiritual one. You need to repent of papism. Now.

[@Joeonline26]

🤣🤣🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤡🤡

[@Roman_ROCMP]

@@Joeonline26so, no argument

[@Joeonline26]

@@Roman_ROCMP Exactly. Your comment couldn't even accurately describe the Catholic position, never mind making a single coherent argument. That's why I'm laughing at it🤣🤦‍♂️

[@Roman_ROCMP]

@@Joeonline26tell me then, how do you know which papal pronouncements are indeed "infallible" and "ex cathedra"? Is there a distinction criterion? Was it infallibly established?