The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [Introduction]

CCT Patreon
/ classicalchristianthought
The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox
stpaulcenter.com/product/the-...
Course on Justification (CCT)
erickybarra.com/resource-dire...
Justification (Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Just-Shall-Liv...
Course on Melchizedek (CCT)
erickybarra.com/resource-dire...
Melchizedek and the Last Supper (Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Melchizedek-La...
The Filioque (Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Filioque-Revis...

[@ZZZELCH]

I think Mr Ybarra has done more to understand and clarify “the Papacy” than anyone in the RC for at least the last 50-100 years. This is fundamentally important to assist REAL apologetics and since dialogue with the various Christian traditions. We don’t have to agree on all subjects and particulars to have true charity and dialogue. But doing so certainly helps a great deal. Good work.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you, sir!

[@masterchief8179]

Great work, Erick! Honestly, I’m more and more convinced that some EO rhetoric concerning a sort of “Vatican 1 boogeyman” is extremely innocuous apart from their own need for factionalism and maybe an empty anti-Catholicism. Of course there is room for historical investigation and people with honesty can arrive at different places while dealing with those data, but they need to engage us where Catholic dogma and Catholic claims are nevertheless. Words offer lexicographical delimitations; in that we get their semantics, then the theological meaning. History gives the data for us to investigate even-handedly, but “supreme” and “immediate”, for instance, are often badly caricaturized on the lexicon adopted by some that try to engage these topics. If we search Vatican I’s documents in light of the theological propositions (take the example of Gasser’s “Relatio”) that were dogmatized, then we all would know better the true Catholic position, Catholics or otherwise. Therefore, we all need to urgently avoid the “Rambo bishop” caricature. Some ecclesiological concepts must be explained for those of good faith and good will so that they get not easily manipulated. It’s pretty basic for some good Catholic theologians, but not so much for either anti-Catholics or the ground level apologetics that’s not equipped to respond to this strawman: *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 mere 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, let alone by the Empire, 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 through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution, not by a democratic or proto-democratic principle. 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 in general preferable as a whole for the body’s sane functioning). *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 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 / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any 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 brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate, not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation, from particularity to universality and vice-versa. 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). 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 primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere 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” 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 a basic 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). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, 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 the anti-Catholics who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and get furious on the 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 post this just to help people who are discerning these things, so that they are not wronged by satires. God bless!

[@jebbush2527]

Yup

[@Proclivitytolife]

I found your book fantastic Erick. I was very impressed by how balanced and fair you were in your approach. It definitely came off as more "investigative" than "apologetic" in my opinion.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you :D I did try to be that.

[@Metanoia000]

Top notch👍

[@tomgjokaj]

Go Eric 💪💪

[@jtchristo]

“Heellooo everyone welcome back - *cough cough* - forgive me, as I am getting over a cough so if I cough some more then please forgive me - so with that being said..” - Every video of Erick ever 😂

[@Catholic_Totty]

Hey brother! Are you planning to/are you currently selling the Papacy book in paperback? God bless x

[@thissaintme]

Hey Eric, i have a pdf of your book (i didn't bought it, i found it on discord) is it okay if i read it?

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Which discord?

[@krkenheimer]

@@Erick_Ybarra hehe

[@annakimborahpa]

1. Erick, I've heard of Maximus the Confessor, but are you Minimus the Investigator? 2. After defining papal infallibility in Pastor Aeturnus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ) and issuing it on July 18, 1870, the bishops at Vatican Council I were working on a second dogmatic constitution of the church when the council was forcibly adjourned due to (A) the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war on July 19 and (B) the subsequent surrounding of the Vatican by troops of the newly formed kingdom of Italy, thereby making Pope Pius IX a prisoner. Nearly a century later, Vatican Council II's Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the Church, solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964, completed the Catholic Church's teaching on infallibility as Jesus Christ's gift to His entire church. From LG No. 25: Paragraph 2 - Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (1 Pt. 2:5). This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith (Rev. 21:16) Paragraph 3 - The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith (Eph. 5:26). 3. Therefore, the infallibility given by Jesus Christ to His Church can be seen as an image/reflection of the Holy Trinity and its interior relations. A. The Bishop of Rome and Successor to St. Peter enjoys "the prerogative of infallibility." (Monarchy of The Father) B. The individual bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, "proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly" throughout the world and most particularly when they are gathered together with the Bishop of Rome in an ecumenical council. (The Son as image of The Father) C. The entire Church is blessed with a passive infallibility through their assent to the teachings of the pope and bishops that constitutes the full measure of its guaranteed preservation by the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit as the communion of life and love between The Father and The Son, whose origin is in The Father and reciprocated by The Son)

[@trusttruth6097]

Your citing the Heretics and Apostates of Vatican 2 for your point. Try again.

[@annakimborahpa]

1. In attendance as "Heretics and Apostates" at the Second Vatican Council were the theological advisors (A) Bishop Karol Wojtyla who later became Pope John Paul II and (B) Father Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI, as well as (C) Pope John XVIII who convened the council. 2. Pope John Paul II, along with Pope John XXIII, were canonized as saints in the Catholic Church by Pope Francis at St. Peter's Square on April 27, 2014. 3. Would Pope Trusty Truth the 6097th care to reverse these two canonizations anytime soon?

[@trusttruth6097]

@@annakimborahpa If you really want to know the Truth start with two sites, google, what catholics believe Ohio and read the statement of principles. A brief explanation of what has happened in the Church. Also go to Novus Ordo Watch. Both give good sources of the True Teachings of the Catholic Church and show what took place and cover what is going on now. The false Popes since 1958 are Not Saints based on the Teaching of the Church. They are proof of the heretic and apostate that declared them. They have been and are promoting Error. Try the sites to understand and learn the True Faith. Good Luck

[@trusttruth6097]

Yes because John Paul and Ratzinger were heretics promoting the heresy in the documents of Vatican 2 then when they became false Popes they implemented what came from the Council and much more. To understand what has happened google, what Catholics believe Ohio and read their statement of principles. Also go to Novus Ordo Watch, which explains the Apostasy we are in. From both you can find real Catholic sources. The True Catholic Faith can Not change. They are promoting things that have been Condemned. Good Luck.

[@iwansaputra1890]

from leavent and unleavent bread to papacy. for the sake of schism they do anything they can possible, from silly issue to real one issue EO demand our perfect teology from catholic but neither EO or catholic have perfect teology if perfect teology is standard for salvation. no one on earth can be saved

[@trusttruth6097]

Learn the True Faith at what catholics believe ohio

[@Justas399]

The history of the 1st century do not support a papacy.

[@gosomikorean.]

In early Christianity (or primitive Christianity) There was no unifying doctrine Later, the claim that Jesus is God, that he actually becomes the body and blood of the Lord during the Holy Eucharist , a confession I heard it's been established, is it true? according to our Korean ethics textbook, the early Christian doctrines came about 400 years later I learn that it was made and systematized under the influence of Greek thought at Korean's ethnic text book

[@hunterburney1257]

What exactly is your question? Are you asking if Christianity was made up in the 3rd century?

[@Ordinary_Catholic]

Hogwash. St Thomas Christians were already worshipping Christ as God incarnate in India as early as 56 AD. Riddle me that!

[@Justas399]

3 minimal facts against Peter being a pope: Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church in the gospels nor his letters. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church in their letters. Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

If you could establish that, it would be a neat minimal facts counter

[@Justas399]

@@Erick_Ybarra It is established in Scripture.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

​@@Justas399the opposite is

[@Justas399]

@@Erick_Ybarra Peter nor the apostles ever claimed Peter was a pope.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@Justas399 Sure they did