Ubi Petrus vs. Erick Ybarra - DEBATE REVIEW with Erick Ybarra & Elijah Yasi

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks for having us on. Had a great time

[@elijahyasi]

Thanks for having us on, Suan!

[@AndyDavis117]

is it possible for @elijahyasi or anyone else to cite the original source via a book, article, or blog that shows the full correspondence between the Swiss Bishops and Pope Pius IX? I'm looking for the original source or a translation of it. Not a citation from any of these: 1) THE TRUE AND THE FALSE Infallibility of The Popes, 2) Mgr. Fessle, . 3) Emmanuel Cosquin, or 4) Bishop Fessler's Pamphlet

[@elijahyasi]

@AndyDavis117 is there a reason why you're asking for this? Are you doubting the letter is authentic? This letter is cited by many books. What exactly are you suggesting?

[@AndyDavis117]

@@elijahyasi I’d like to read the original rather than a citation. Not doubting it no. But if the original doesn’t exist… I could see why some would doubt it. Do you have a citation of the original source or somewhere you could point me to in order to find the original? Does it exist?

[@elijahyasi]

@AndyDavis117 I've never heard of a single scholar, historian, or theologian who doubts it. They mention it, translate it, talk about it without a single reference to doubting its authenticity.

[@AndyDavis117]

@@elijahyasi So we do not have a full or even a mostly full record of the original correspondence? Is all we is have that quotation you read? I wonder why all we have is just that quote? It must of come from somewhere. It seems we would full or partial copies somewhere to me. Don’t you agree, the full correspondence would be helpful and super interesting to read? and how many scholars, historians, or theologians have actually even studied it or directly or indirectly addressed its authenticity? perhaps no one doubts it because no scholar, historian, or theologian has ever really looked into it or written on it other than what it says as opposed to its authenticity?

[@zke1085]

Erick, thanks for your work and class in interacting with our separated brothers in Christ. Just purchased a 2nd copy after finishing The Filioque. I've given the original to a member of my Benedictine Oblate group.

[@Spsz6000]

This may be the best review yet.

[@tonyl3762]

I don't miss a video with Erick. Wish I could've listened and participated live. This was value-add. Much more concise and to the point compared to the review with William, as much as I like his channel too.

[@chad_hominem]

Looking forward to seein you fellas with William on Sam's channel for the 3 v 3 roundtable discussion to put these EO objections to rest. God bless you guys and thank you for all your valuable work & contributions to the defence of the Faith & Apostolic Church!

[@Metanoia000]

How soon is that supposed to be

[@Spartan1.1.7]

Still no comment on SATIS COGNITUM? the Minimum approached (or whatever approach Erick used in the debate) threw SATIS COGNITUM under the bus. That was one of Ubi’s major points at his closing remarks at the 2:58:13 mark of the debate video on Pints and you didn’t even mention SATIS COGNITUM in this whole review that I heard. That’s wild to me and still indicated to me that Ubi had the edge in the debate.

[@elijahyasi]

He quoted a whole encyclical in passing. This is not something to take seriously without giving reference to what part of SC he's referring to. You're assuming that Ubi has the right understanding of SC when we've sufficiently shown that he has the wrong understanding of the papacy. I used a document approved by the very Pope who resided at V1. That document is explicit in going against the idea that the Pope is an autocrat who would isolate himself from the bishops and act.

[@Spartan1.1.7]

Ubi cites the document in detail in the debate many times. the real passing comment here is your’s it seems to me and is just one more reason as to why it is hard to take Catholicism seriously. glad y’all are trying with these 2 debate reviews though. have a nice day.

[@elijahyasi]

@@Spartan1.1.7 you gave a timestamp where he mentions it. He doesn't cite anything. Can you point to where he cites anything specific?

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@elijahyasi I saw the uselessness of dealing with this comment right when it was published

[@elijahyasi]

@@Erick_Ybarra prudent

[@jacobstevens9957]

I can get on board with the papacy but I have a hard time reconciling the small t traditions that the church no longer practices like married priests and infant communion. I understand it’s still aloud in the eastern rite churches but those practices seem more consistent with the first 1000 years of the church. It’s odd that the majority of the Catholic Church today doesn’t hold to the same practices

[@uldisarbidans694]

Orthodox would still have excuses if they saw evidence where Pope acts alone. Cause Fr. patrick Ramsey in one his debates about Papacy claims said that we can see some exceptions but what makes the tradition is it should happen repeatedly.

[@AndyDavis117]

is it possible for @elijahyasi or anyone else to cite the original source via a book, article, or blog that shows the full correspondence between the Swiss Bishops and Pope Pius IX? I'm looking for the original source or a translation of it. Not a citation from any of these: 1) THE TRUE AND THE FALSE Infallibility of The Popes, 2) Mgr. Fessle, . 3) Emmanuel Cosquin, or 4) Bishop Fessler's Pamphlet

[@aguspare1992]

On 1:30:49 about Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Erick said that it's not pertinent to the debate because it's not heretical and eventually Rome accepted Constantinople as the second after Rome. That is missing the point. Of course the episode with Canon 28 is not pertinent to papal infallibility since it has nothing to do with doctrines. But it is pertinent to papal supremacy. The whole episode proves that the pope outranked the consensus of numerous bishops who deliberated in an ecumenical council. That is something. True, Leo's annulment of Canon 28 is somewhat ignored by the east (this is because way before Chalcedon, and after Constantinople became the capital, eastern bishops, not Alexandria, and even patriarch used to defered to bishop of Constantinople because they have the ear of the emperors. Even paying stipend for eastern bishops ordination). Nevertheless this practice is born out of disobedience to the canon (Nicea I canon as Leo argued).

[@Erick_Ybarra]

You got that from my book, right? So how could I be missing the point? I just didn't think it extremely valuable because Leo's annulment can conform to Apostolic Canon 34

[@aguspare1992]

@Erick_Ybarra I read it elsewhere (either Philip Hughes or Catholic Encyclopedia). You know, when writing that comment I was thinking about Apostolic Canon 34. But later I forgot to write about it. It would've gone like so: ======== There's also the Apostolic Canons 34, where it says, and I paraphrase, that the body of bishops must agree with the head, ie. the first amongst them, and vice versa. If both parties are not in agreement, then nothing is decided. This is what the Orthodox would say when confronted with Leo's annulment of canon 28. But Apostolic Canons 34 IS NOT about the relation between pope and bishops, but between metropolitans and bishops. If we look at the canons of the Council of Antioch on 341 we see a similar canon where it says that the first is not the pope but the first bishop of each nation. Metropolitans fit that. Because Apostolic Canons 34 is just copying Antioch 341 canon. So no one in the 5th century would think that canon 28 is made null because the first doesn't agree with the body. Instead they would believe that canon 28 is made null because Leo quashed it. ========

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@aguspare1992 The initial point I am making is that if you've read my book, then you know I draw some attention to precisely what you said. And that makes it very odd that you would come here and accuse me of missing the point. Secondly, although I've said over and over again that Apostolic Canon 34 is not a reference to the universal council (as I have made clear in prior videos), I don't want to get anywhere close to the possibility of an appeal to AC 34. Moreover, there are instances where canons for regional synods are applied at universal ones. I don't have it off the top of my head but I'll make sure to get some references later. I believe it occurs in the Council of Ephesus 431. I'm traveling right now and I don't have access to my library. Simply put, think before you comment.

[@aguspare1992]

@@Erick_Ybarra Oh come on. You said in the video that it's not pertinent because it's not about doctrine. But the video is about the debate on the papacy as a whole (not just papal infallibility). Of course I don't think for a second that you do not understand, or even realize, the importance of Leo's annulment in the papacy discourse. But you said what you said in the video. And I think some footnote, like my comment above, is needed.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@aguspare1992 And that is because Apostolic Canon 34, even though not explicitly speaking to the universal head, can be used to try and contextualize Pope Leo's annulment of canon 28. Local and regional canons were applied to ecumenical settings all the time and so there is a slight chance someone can try and buttress the claim that Leo was simply acting in the capacity of AC34. Your vicious repetition that AC34 is with regard to the head of a region will not short circuit it. At least, not to the extent you think it does. That's why I didn't bring it up in the debate. But I wouldn't be surprised if YOU did, and found yourself in a bit of a bind.

[@edmato9297]

**Question rephrasing the standard of evidence required by Ubi as it seems to be misrepresented by this video** Did the Church in the 5th and 6th centuries accept any doctrinal definitions by the Pope without question or independent judgment? The issue Ubi raised in this debate is that whenever the papacy attempted to define doctrine-such as in the cases of Pope Vigilius at the 5th Ecumenical Council or Pope Leo at the 4th-there was always a thorough examination or outright rejection by the Eastern bishops. This contradicts what one might expect if the Roman papacy's authority were truly unquestioned, namely, automatic acceptance by the entire Church without dispute.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

there was always resistance to ecumenical councils, as well. Do you think Councils have any authority?

[@edmato9297]

@@Erick_Ybarra The key difference is that, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the reception of an ecumenical council depends on the approval of each patriarchal synod-essentially, the unified will of all the synods representing the entire Church. Resistance to an ecumenical council, prior to formal acceptance by each local synod, is consistent with the Eastern Orthodox model. In contrast, formal acceptance of papal decrees in the Roman Catholic Church requires only the will of the Pope. In this case, resistance to the Pope’s dogmatic definitions or decrees seems futile and appears to conflict with the doctrine that a Pope cannot be judged-this challenge actually undermines the Roman Catholic framework.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@edmato9297 Edgar, you know better than this

[@edmato9297]

@@Erick_Ybarra I’m pleased you remember me. Who knew the Facebook forums back in the days would amount to so much in the online space. Wish you the best with your ministry!

[@namapalsu2364]

Denny Sellen's papacy is even higher than the current Greek Church of today.

[@edmato9297]

Not quite. It is how the Greek church works

[@Silverhailo21]

ABSOLUTELY REVIEWED

[@edmato9297]

To Erick, ubi’s position is not unique. It is the normative doctrine. Unfortunately Orthodoxy is conflated with Episcopalian doctrine - bishops are equal in sacramental authority (they have the same sacramental power), but their administrative authority differs based on rank.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

that's not all Ubi holds

[@edmato9297]

@@Erick_Ybarra I’m familiar with Denny Sellen and had many discussions with him years ago, before I started my family and retired from online debates. I can assure you that his views are not new; they represent a foundational framework that all Orthodox Churches accept. I believe your interpretation of the Russian versus Greek understanding of primacy is exaggerated and, frankly, a straw man argument. The Russians reject the notion of absolute equality among bishops, which is considered the heresy of Khomiakhovism, or Episcopalianism outside Orthodoxy. Ironically, the Russians hold the Patriarch of Moscow in a position almost as high as the Roman Catholics view the Pope, yet you seem to suggest they don't believe in primacy. In contrast, the Greeks have a more collegial approach to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The real distinction between the two is the extent of the powers associated with primacy, not the existence of primacy itself. To win your debate with Ubi, you needed to demonstrate that the Pope is not merely the head of the council (as Orthodoxy teaches), but actually stands above it (as Roman Catholic popes have historically acted). In other words, you would have needed to show that a pope issued dogmatic decrees like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary in the 5th or 6th centuries to make your case. Essentially, “If pigs can fly, show me a pig that can fly.”

[@Erick_Ybarra]

I showed that. Your own saints believed it.

[@edmato9297]

@@Erick_Ybarra You provided excellent evidence, and honestly, the strongest point you made was with Pope St. Leo. However, for the most part, the Pope was presented as little more than the head of the Patriarchal council. Ubi's strongest argument against the formula of Hormisdas seems to be that it’s unlikely the Greeks would have held opposing views before and after, yet suddenly endorsed it just for that document. Focusing too heavily on that document seems to overlook the broader continuity of Greek thought both before and after. It gives the impression of overemphasizing something relatively minor. Erick, I’d love to see you do a stream addressing Chieti and Alexandria. I read your essay on the topic a while back, but in light of the papal endorsement, it seems to have lost some of its relevance. You’re probably aware that we’ll have a joint declaration on infallibility and the filioque this May/June. I’m really looking forward to seeing what it says. I’m hopeful that unity will come quickly!

[@arrocoda3590]

Is this like the third debate review Ybarra has done for this specific debate? Lol

[@Catholic_Totty]

Yeah, and I’ll watch all of em

[@Erick_Ybarra]

You got me! #owned

[@learningbyzcath]

😂😂​@@Erick_Ybarra

[@calebadcock363]

Forgive the guy for having lots of friends lol