Interesting that Lofton admits that some of the issues with the EO today are similiar to those of the early Church. That is because the ecclesiology of the EO is the same as that of the early Church.
@@ubipetrus3882 Hey Ubi, your content is part of the reason why I became Orthodox! I was wondering if you ever got around to making the refutation video about the Dimmonds' attack on Palamism
@@Cavirex Contact Perry Robinson (same name on FB) and @Acolyte83349490 on Twitter. He also has the YT channel "Energetic Procession" found here: www.youtube.com/@EnergeticProcession He is the one writing/editing the script and you should contact him as, the last I heard, only one script out of six for the planned six part series has been completed in the last two years.
As a Byzantine Catholic I do hope Erick Ybarra and Michael Lofton will be open to accept the offer. Would be great to see Jay Dyer, Perry Robinson, and Ubi Petrus doing back to back Tag Team debate going through Catholic teachings one by one. As a Catholic I can attest that Jay Dyer, Perry Robinson, and Ubi Petrus are honest and genuine with their approach. If we do seek the truth there's no need to avoid the offer just accept it. Truth is open to vulnerability and scrutiny. In fact it would embrace and confront it to be tested and verified. I agree with you Ubi Petrus that while Cretan council not accepted by Georgia, Bulgaria, Antioch, and Russia, the Creedal canons are unanimously accepted by all Orthodox. That alone to me is a serious conversation that any Catholic must not be afraid to discuss. Great work my brother, God bless!
Most likely, he is referring to the documents before the council. IIRC, five of the seven points were unanimously accepted. The other two had only one or two parties who abstained.
Ybarra's been running for years. I'm a former lay Catholic Apologist who's been Orthodox 20yrs. Ybarra's been running from me for years. He can't handle the Truth. He's absolutely refused to debate me. Lofton is a thinner version of Y'barra. The quality of Catholic Apologists has decreased exponentially the last 30yrs. Many, like I, have become Orthodox. He won't respond. He's incapable of it except to slander. A basic examination of the First Millennium Councils and Canons clearly shows there is no papal Supremacy. It's starts there in Canon 6, Nicea. The Vatican admitted to this fact in paragraph 19 of the Cheiti Agreement 2016. He knows that. He's in total denial. He lacks any intellectual integrity. He's a coward. Yes...YOU Mr. Y'barra! I was an RC Apologist when the Catholic Church changed its doctrine on baptism BACK to the Orthodox belief in 1992 with zero announcement. The change just appeared in the Cathecism. Catholic Apologists KNOW they can't debate Orthodox Christians and win. I knew it as a Catholic Apologist too! "Come and see" what you're clueless about Mr. Y'barra. I used to work/correspond with Michael Voris. I' kept him informed on the Chicago, Rockford and Joliet Diocese for years. I'm the reason why he had to remove a commentary where he ended it saying, "...go to an Orthodox Church" in 2004 less than 24hrs after it dropped. Voris and I had a heart to heart. He knows he's fighting a losing pointless battle. I pray one day he can put away his pride and come home to Orthodoxy.
@@batmaninc2793Pseudo-orthodox Dyer doesn't represent us (Ubi does), just like pseudo-catholic Lofton doesn't represent Catholics. Btw Batman is demonic filth forbidden in Christianity, so take it off please.
@@Matthew_T23 Don’t ever say he’s wrong in anything he does. Ask those from his inner circle, which Lofton covers from someone’s forum. They’ll doxx you, even priests. He spends the money from fans who buy his relatively fruitless products to buy ganja and get high while reading the catechism and sacred scripture.
Ubi is hands down my fav Orthodox channel. I remember when I was inquiring into Orthodoxy, I had many questions about their view on Catholic papal claims and how to interpret the historical data. Along comes this channel with a single video that absolutely knocked it out of the park; glad to see the quality has never diminished. Ubi is my go to recommendation for inquirers/catechumens who have questions similar to the ones I had.
As a Catholic, I found Mr. Lofton's criticism of the recent lack of "Pan Orthodox" councils bitterly ironic. The Catholic Church, of course, did hold a "universal" council: Vatican II. Whatever else it may have achieved, Vatican II can hardly be deemed a dogmatic or liturgical success. No Western bishop can "opt out" of a council called by the pope. In light of Vatican II, that is not exactly a "selling point" for Lofton's claims.
Why does he seem to be so obsessed with Orthodoxy? Just considering pure numbers, we're like nothing in the West. Why bring a sledgehammer to squash a fly? It's like he has to constantly justify his apostasy.
He’s paid by Catholic Inc to do apologetics against traditional Catholicism and especially Orthodoxy. Given his dubious background as a “former orthodox” member, Catholic inc found him suitable for this purpose. He serves as a “wall” to prevent novus ordo normies to going rad trad to Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholics from going to Orthodoxy as well.
Lofton calls Orthodox “Protestants with apostolic succession” and then later says the early church was chaotic and gives a progressive Protestant idea of doctrine and praxis as if the apostles did not hand down THE faith but a seed that needed to be watered either by the pope, which is the Protestant view just replace the pope with the Bible.
You will never hear from Lofton. If he truly believed in his position he would readily debate. I suspect there is also a lot of guilt, as down deep, he knows he is deceiving his audience. Very well done Ubi, devastating to the RC position!
Lofton avoids and censors even Catholics who challenge his opinion or attitude. All the best trying to get him to interact with the Orthodox response/perspective.
I might use this as one of my go-to videos to send people for why they shouldn't be Roman Catholic. Both formerly as a Protestant and now as an Orthodox, I never understood why so many people found the typical Catholic polemic about the papal dogmas to be so compelling. This exposes just how weak that polemic actually is.
They were compelling to me after reading the Catholic catechism cover to cover two or three times, plus Ott and a host of the more accessible apologists (Pitre, Hahn, Bergsma, Barber et al). The narrative is framed expertly, and at least to me was very convincing when only consuming Roman Catholic resources. Upon further reading and digging, the narrative is shifting in my head. What appeared to be patriarchates disobedient to Rome, now seems more and more clear that it was Rome breaking away from the pentarchy and creating what seem to me to be numerous innovations.
because papal supremacy is true and is demonstrable in scripture and tradition. you eastern “orthodoxes” are the ones in schism and nothing you can do will change that. your “church” is even crumbling before you. convert before it is too late
@@Sicilianus I have seen many attempts to demonstrate it in scripture and tradition. None of them work. And no, the Orthodox church is not crumbling. If you're referring to something like the schism between Moscow and Constantinople, that's nothing compared to the schism the Roman church had the Protestants. There's a massive, ongoing, 500 year schism for you. No such thing has ever happened in the Orthodox church.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed you’ve seen “attempts” because you ignore them to match your own theology. and yes your “church” is crumbling, so are the protestants. the Catholic Church remains strong. if the Catholic Church isn’t the true church btw, eastern “orthodoxy” still won’t be true due to the buddhist pagan prayer of palamas.
@@Sicilianus Where does Traditional Roman Catholicism remain strong in your local Nursing Home perhaps? What makes you believe that the Roman Catholic Church will still institutionally even exist 100 years from now and if it does that it will even remain remotely Christian?
ML still does not get Jay's point regarding our different paradigms. For him, his religion is to be studied and drilled into his head. For us, the lived reality embodies the totality of our faith. He will never get it, it seems.
@@floridaman318 I doubt I even mean what you imply. We do not sit around and figure out our faith (as it has become a sport for Roman Catholics of our times). It is handed down to us and is encoded in the very manner in which we live. You all seem to assume the Papal understanding of religion, therefore insist on imposing it on us.
@@Nina_Mo2 The faith is handed down in actual, true Catholicism. You are confusing the fact that theologians think and analyze the Faith to come to a better understanding of it with innovation. Also, popes do not make new doctrine, only explicitly clarify and define doctrine in finality. The papacy is the last court of appeals, so to speak, when there are disputes or misunderstandings, as there have always been from the beginning.
@@floridaman318 Rome was the last court of appeal in matters of praxis, not dogma. The councils granted Rome the position of court of appeal for priests and bishops who felt they were wrongly deposed and could not find justice in their own jurisdiction. This same privilege was later granted to Constantinople. As ever, RCs are simply ignorant of church history.
So, in summary: 1. Good for thee but not for me; and 2. Orthodox don't have defined dogma because their academics disagree but Catholics do have defined dogma, even though their academics disagree. I have been consistently appalled by how poorly constructed Lofton's arguments are. In fact, I can't even classify them as "arguments" (for example, the assertion that the "Orthodox can't have an ecumenical councils" simply assumes what needs to be demonstrated: namely that post-schism Orthodox councils are invalid while Catholic councils are valid). It's more akin to CNN-style narratives constructed by blatantly biased partisans. Also, it should be noted that while Lofton calls us "Protestants with Apostolic succession" (a contradiction in itself), this is not the position of the actual, Catholic Magisterium. The Catholic Church affirms that the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in terms of sacramental grace, that Catholics should not try to convert us, and it acknowledges that we (the Eastern Church) never accepted Vatican 1 style papal claims.
The Catholic Church affirms that the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in terms of sacramental grace and that Catholics shouldn’t try to convert the Orthodox? Where? I‘ve never heard of that.
@@zavoh227 That the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in sacramental grace, you can find it in Unitatis redintegratio, Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Balamand Statement and in other documents. On the issue of converting Orthodox, this has been an ordinary Papal teaching since at least JPII. It's repeatedly taught by Francis today. See documents Ut unam sint and Orientale lumen.
Overall I am a fan of R&T. But your right when it comes to this particular area of conversation. Having read quite a bit of Saint JP2, I would agree with your assessment.
I recently brought patriarchal ratification up to Lofton in the comments section of a recent video of his. After several attempts to accuse me of "misrepresenting him," his only response was "this approach begs the question." That's it. Crickets afterwards.
Claiming you've misunderstood or misrepresenting him following by being blocked is Lofton's modus operandi. You're a rare find in that he didn't block but only ignored you. In the live chat to his attempt at a response to us, Lofton made a comment claiming that we (Ubi) don't understand Lofton's position and he isn't going to respond (ironic, right?). If that is the case, why not go through the video we did, clip by clip, and clarify what was said?
My issue with Lofton is that he has a weird obsession bashing Orthodox TH-cam channels by having on other ppl who claim to be Orthodox to bash them. Then he acts above it as if he has some unearned moral high ground. Opening statement 100% accurate
Dogma NEVER really mattered to the Roman Catholic Church because The Church has never (and most likely will never) issued a specific list of Dogmas which ALL Catholics must believe. They never did this (and most likely will never do this) because if they did so then they would never be able to "change" their theological positions as they have consistently been doing for well over a thousand years.
This is very informative Ubi, but... *Inhales smugly* Did it ever occur to you that you liked a parody account that made fun of Eric Ybarra's weight, thereby invalidating anything that you said, have ever said, and ever will say? ...what do you mean "genetic" fallacy? My fallacious reasoning comes from my upbringing, not genetics.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 As does the guy who bullied Lofton in high school, the guy who flipped him off while he was driving on the way to the grocery store, etc. They all lack charity, dawg.
@@ubipetrus3882 I feel like the degree of behavior on Lofton and Co's part speak more of a person who would be a bully in the classical sense if he could (but couldn't and therefore was bullied) so he had to resort to cry-bullying to bully others. Their behavior legitimately reminds of certain toxic family members that I grew up with. The type who will slander you behind your back and then fake cry when you confront them.
Can we also start holding Matt Fradd to account as well? Here is his comment about Ubi after Ubi’s debate with Suan: For what it's worth I'd like to apologize for thinking badly of Ubi. I had heard things about him that, given this debate, don't seem to be true at all. He was both intelligent and gracious. -Pints with Aquinas Despite this supposed revelation, he has continued having on cronies like Lofton on his show to denigrate the Faith, while refusing to provide the Orthodox a platform. Ubi can correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like the Orthodox should be given an opportunity to represent themselves on PwA after all the drivel on that channel coming from Ybarra, Lofton, etc. (not to mention Fradd sporting shirts depicting Orthodox saints)
Here's the thing: Fradd, Lofton, Ybarra, Albrecht, Flanders, Yasi, Sonna, and Horn are in a sort of "Novus Ordo but Uniate old boys' club" that's 'Catholic Answers Adjacent.' They cover for each other, they don't hold one another to account (it appears Ybarra and Yasi knew about Lofton's "living situation" but kept milking R&T for attention instead of quietly stepping away until the situation was rectified), and they spotlight one another repeatedly. I don't think any of them are necessarily competent or necessarily good at anything and that is what makes them accessible" mediocrity for the mediocre masses. The center of their thought is Pope Francis and how to justify and rectify the things he says. This is why justifying the papal claims is so incredibly important to them and appears to be the bread and butter of Lofton, Ybarra, Sonna, and Yasi. You have lots of other Catholic apologists that don't fit into that category but my main interaction is with that group because my interest is history and they tend to focus on history.
If I recall correctly Fradd no longer attends a Uniate parish. I remember him sharing on one of his shows after he moved that he wanted to reclaim his western heritage or something to that effect. This is just speculation but I imagine novus ordo parishes in Steubenville are probably a great place for catholic apologists to make business connections.
SAINT IRENAEUS “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Saint Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Saint Optatus "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD Saint Jerome “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD Saint Augustine “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). Saint Ambrose of Milan “It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). Council of Chalcedon “Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
Does someone want to point out to Anthony where in our other videos and articles these quotations are dealt with? About half of them have already been addressed by us.
These kind of quotes seemed convincing arguments for the claims of Vat1 when I first encountered them (esp in Ray's "Upon this Rock"). Then I kept digging. Among other sources, Denny's "Papalism" does an excellent job of offering historical context. From my perspective, the RCC are expert at framing narratives..."ok class when you read 'keys to the kingdom' just remember what Jesus meant there was what we teach in session 4 of Vatican 1, got it?"
@@johnsayre2038 same when I was catholic, finding quotes like this was amazing, then you look at the history and contextualize everything and it doesn’t lead to what vatican 1 teaches. And tbh and no disrespect, it seems like Catholics use the church fathers like Protestants use sacred scripture, quote something out of nowhere and out of context. Their favourite one is “rome has spoken the case is finished”, and we all know the context to that one lol
It looks like he already has. Notice the comments from "Michael Speyrer." It's the same vocab, talking points, and phrasing that you see in his comments under videos on his TH-cam channel.
At 13:00, are you guys being cheeky about the lack of debate in the 19th century surrounding the RC dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception? There clearly was opposition within RC, before Pius IX gurgled his nascent infallible voice: "Pius IX had already tested infallibility, when in 1854 he declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of “which some of them [bishops] dreaded and some opposed, but [to, sic) which all submitted when he had decreed without the intervention of a council." Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power, Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books, 1972, p. 305., in Two Paths by Michael Whelton, p. 72. Protecting Veil Ed.
Surely you get the point. The doctrine wasn't being openly opposed prior to this, There was no great "heresy" or movement against it. Sure some bishops were uncomfortable when they saw it coming down the line, but that doesn't mean it was a matter of huge debate at the time. Many were uncomfortable, arguably, because they saw it as unnecessary. Similarly with VI definition on papal infallibility. Many Latin bishops didn't want it defined. It wasn't a matter of debate. But it got defined and they fell in line. Such is the way the Roman church runs, at least since Trent. Likewise there was no debate or "heresy" regarding the Assumption. Listen to the argument. Look at the history. Not some scholar's take on the history, but the actual historical context. When the councils met to define dogma, it was always in response to some widespread heresy that demanded correction. Such was not the case with either IM or Assumption. But here's the rub: why didn't the pope just declare ex-Cathedra the creed, instead of holding Nicea and Constantinople 1? Or why not declare Monophysite a heresy at Chalcedon, rather than submit a tome for the council to consider? Answer: because the church of those times was completely alien to the Vatican I mentality. It held councils, and considered the view of the pope of Rome along with the views of all other brother bishops. The councils spoke. The pope was just another voice at said councils. Because the pope was just another patriarch.
AFAIK, Pope Pius IX requested the bishops survey their clergy and laity on the IC and the results came back overwhelmingly in favor of defining the IC. I would be hesitant in quoting Whelton as he tends to rely on sweeping generalizations and any little thing he can find, regardless of how insignificant, to take digs at the RC. I don't use his material, period.
It seems as though RCs only like to quote Met. Kallistos Ware and his Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew, neither of whom are exactly well know for being orthodox in their Orthodoxy.
In this case I don't think it is so much they are running to the most modernist sources, but they restrict themselves to only introductory level English language resources. Unfortunately, in scholarly discussions in Orthodoxy or this topic in general, if you only know english you are severely handicapped.
Excellent points, as usual! The personal pettiness, however, makes it so that I can never share your content with my catholic family members, which is a shame since you have the best stuff out there and I think it'd be convincing to them. Please consider producing stuff that only addresses ML's arguments and not him personally. Ordinary people will use your "trolling" as a way to not engage with your arguments, which is all too easy to do anyway for someone who is trapped in the papist frame of mind. Don't give them the excuse!
We are all adults bro. We can take a polemical jab here and there and wake up the next morning the same as any other day. The obsession for the lack of any polemic whatsoever is best suited for a college class, not a video addressing a particular apologist. Men have been using polemics in their arguments since the days of antiquity. Have you read much of the Church Fathers? They throw jabs at their openents all the time.
One point Lofton brings up is about the filioque, yet even Catholics hold different views on that. Bonaventure definitely had a different understanding (see his video with Jared Goff on the discussion). Yves Congar also mentions that catholics should remove the filioque from the creed as a sign of good faith, does Lofton believe that? Of course if the Catholic church did how would that not contradict what it has done for roughly 1000 years and thus falsify infallibility?
There are so many views on grace so many views on what doctrine itself is. Some of them will even cite this diversity has the “Catholic” nature of the church
No they don't. They have different views of the attonment, not the filoque. The Filoque is an optional statement. There was some debate about that, not about the meaning of the filioque. You dont' even understand the difference here, but with Ortobro it anyway.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Can you explain the difference bonaventure had as pointed out by Dr Jared Goff on R&T, where he thinks it might be possible to use as a point of agreement between the two churches then? Since you obviously don't orthobro anything 🙄 You could also provide an answer as to why St Maximus' letter to Marinus states a filioque that's different to the one today? Also could you explain whether the Son is a cause like how it's understood by Greeks as mentioned in the florence & if that's different to the Catholic understanding today?
@Conquering Death imagine a unified church with two creeds LOL especially on something as fundamental as the *filioque.* This choice of churches really isn't difficult. But demons are strong.
@@ubipetrus3882 so, at least for the church here on earth, there's no clear head or let's say a chief steward or a prime minister perhaps over the Master's household?
@usdadsasda347 I'm just curious what, from the Orthodox perspective, the structure of the church actually is, whether at least here on Earth it is a kingdom or a democracy or a republic or a federation or brotherhood or some other conception.
@@Silverhailo21 If "the Church" is, as St. Ignatius's ecclesiology indicates, the bishop surrounded by his presbyters and deacons, that would mean the bishops is the head and chief steward of the Church. Now, what you are trying to get at is a universal steward and head and that depends entirely upon what "steward" and "head" mean. Exactly what does "chief steward" mean amongs a group of "chief stewards." What makes a bishop the chief steward in his diocese is that he's the only bishop.
Hey brother can I get a source on the claim about the Coptic and oriental counter hierarchies not being created until the 6th century. The usual sources just say “after the council of Chalcedon” with no clear evidence or document I can point to to my Coptic and oriental friends to show them this.
I believe that the whole point of Reason and Theology. as Michael intends it, is to provide an accessible public forum for discussion on issues concerning the differences between Catholic and Orthodox. Your criticisms are fair and valid. That is the point of dialogue. I look forward to continued discussion and clarification from both sides.
This video lacked charity, nuance, objectivity, and was not definitive. But seriously, I think that Lofton's primary thinking error -- and we all have these... and they are much easier to discern and point out in others -- is a category error. He has it in his mind that the Church of Rome is different in kind from, say, the Church of Constantinople, Jerusalem, or Moscow. The historical reality, though, is that it is among the various Sees/Patriarchates that are all expressions of the Church of Christ. Granted, it has a unique history and was (rightly) held in high regard as long as it maintained adherence to the Gospel. In embracing this mistake, though, Lofton has somehow presumed that a pronouncement made by the Bishop of Rome or collectively by a Roman Synod is "definitive" and "objective" whereas the same pronouncement by any other See is not. Combine that with a spectacular level of pattern-match seeking, sophistry, and apparent-narcissism, and we have the wonder that is R&T. Of course, any of us is vulnerable to thinking errors, and we desperately need others to point them out to us, for we often can't tell when our own minds have slipped off of the tracks. Hence the importance of avoiding the creation of echo chambers such as R&T seems to have created. I do not look forward to the 132 hours of videos in 36 parts that Lofton, Ybarra, and others are going to produce in response to this, parsing your ambiguous use of the words "and" and "is."
That's because it is. That's because it is definitive. That's becasuse its not. The throwing in sophistry, and narcisism, is a nice Orthobro touch. Not smdge of self rightous narcissim here. "Of course, any of us is vulnerable to thinking errors, and we desperately need others to point them out to us, for we often can't tell when our own minds have slipped off of the tracks."
@@ubipetrus3882 I’m Orthodox and even I’m appalled by the utter lack of charity, attacks, and senseless targeting. It’s getting harder to defend this by the day.
@@Sebastian-ct5ek Then go to another channel where they're super charitable, don't attack, and have sensible targetting. The handful of people who feel the need to tell us we're "uncharitable" and critique our method aren't important to us because we think you're thin-skinned humorless whiners perpetually offended for someone else. So do yourself a favor and never listen to this channel again.
Good video 👍 I'm Catholic and I will like to debate you, I will give you full permission to record it and release it with whatever critique you want, I'm humble and we will agree with more things then disagree (maybe) but looks like fun.
That sounds good but Saturdays are my day I can often have open for debates. I am starting a language class on January 7th and will be occupied with that until mid-April. Once I start this class, I will have a better time of how my Saturdays will work so let us stay in touch. If you are serious, please email me at ubipetrus2019@gmail.com.
I have slight disagreements on some of your video 11:10 I don't think the confession of Dositheus is dogmatic. I abide by Krivoshein's position, that is the condamnation made by Dositheus are good, but certain aspects of his text are quite problematic, and that makes it an important historical text, but not a dogmatic/symbolic text. For those interested, I advise you reading Krivoshein's article "les textes symboliques dans l'église orthodoxe". And it's the same thing with Moghila's confession. Btw, some of their theology isn't nowadays teached nor received by our church, but really ignored. And in some cases, it really doesn't fullfil the Lerintian criteria : that dogma ought to be what was believe by all, everywhere, since the beginning. Furthermore, I think the lerintians criteria is ultimately what makes a council orthodox. How do we know that the Arian synods, Ephesus 2, those against Maximus and that of Hieria were not eucumenical synods ? Some of them had a lot of bishops in them, and a lot of patriarch also. While some of our own councils were lacking some patriarch and had a small number of bishop. In my opinion, it's really its orthodoxy, that is, fulfilling the lerintians criteria and teaching the patristic consensus, that makes things dogmatic. It ought to have been teached everywhere, by everyone, from the beginning, and I may had, it must also have been received by everyone and teached to this day by all. And really, it's not a big deal if we don't have an Infaillible Imam/Pope, nor any "clearly cutting/binding" authority in one of some man. It doesn't make the church less true. If you want to know what I consider dogmatic in our church, it's all the 9 eucumenical councils, plus that of 1484, plus all synods mentioned by the synodikon of orthodoxy and the synodykon of the Holy Spirit All of that is without any error, reflecting the ancient, universal and patristic consensus, and teached and believed to this day.
@@ubipetrus3882 1) I don't think Krivosheine and Crete's Chapter 3 are necessary incompatible. Crete doesn't explain much but accept these councils for their "refutation of protestantism" while Krivosheine argue the same : that it ought to be accepted only as condemning protestant heresy and we shouldn't take everything develloped in the confession as face value. Furthermore, the council of Crete doesn't refer explicitly to Dositheus or Bethléem, but rather to a synod organised at Constantin in 1972. It turns out there is one such synod, who condemned Lukaris, before Dositheus decided to expand it alone (in fact, with a few jerusalemites bishops and priest in Bethlehem) with its confession. (For more on the history, read the article by Krivoshein, wich bases himself on Karmiris). So, if I was forced to abide by Crete (wich I don't feel I am), I could I think very much interpret that reception in the encyclical in a Krivosheinian way, that is, without thinking everything in Dositheus confession is binding dogma
@@ubipetrus3882 2) I think it's a bad argument from you. It's really because heresies are new, from some guy and then his disciples, in a place somewhere, that we know they are heresy. When an heresy appears, it doesn't collapse the consensus patrum of antiquity, but because we have the consensus patrum of antiquity, we know it is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered. So we have a consensus that is from the apostle, and every time a new heresy appear, they are automatically considered unorthodox in their teachings, so not to be counted in the consensus for the next centuries. The lerintian criteria doesn't précise it, but I think it's very obvious that the "from all" means "from all orthodox".
@@ubipetrus3882 Some of our ECs did lack for some time (in certain cases, centuries) the full assent of various legitimate synods : - Constantinople wasn't accepted by Rome until Chalcedon - Ephesus wasn't accepted by Antioch until the Tomos of Reunion (iirc) - Chalcedin wasn't accepted by Alexandria until the bishops got home and elected a patriarch - Constantinople 2 wasn't accepted by the pope before him being excommunicated by the council in retaliation. And I don't know I there really was a Roman synod, but the great majority of western bishops were against it, and there was even a schism in the Italian peninsula itself, with important sees such as Aquileia, Milan, Liguria, Aemilia, Grado. The recognition of the council by the west took much time and the schism healed only fully in 723. - In Trullo (so part of Constantinople 3) wasn't accepted by Rome until Nicea. But because Nicea wasn't accepted either, it wasn't accepted until the Photian council of 880 - Nicea wasn't accepted by Rome until the Photian council of 880
Michael Spreyer in the comment section is most likely carbohydrate Lofton. The comments are just the typical garbage laughable rhetorical statements he usually expresses.
Tried to subscribe on Subscribestar but there's no option to - I see from the comments here that this is due to payments being paused. Is there any ETA on when those will be restarted?
Hopefully within the next month. Our narrator, Earl, has been dealing with personal issues and so has been unable to finish the narration so OP has kindly stepped in and is doing us a solid but that means he has to start the narration from scratch. He thinks he should have it done in three weeks and then Lewis will need two weeks to do the video production. We just posted a YT community note asking for researcher-writers and narrators.
So is it “what has been believed everywhere, always, by all” or is it “all the patriarchal synods ratify it”? If it is both how are the two related? Thank you
36:15 you very easily could have made your point without throwing Father Heers under the bus. You very easily can disagree with him on one point without attacking his whole character.
Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on your to prove that so I'll offer you this: rephrase the pertinent section in a way that conveys the same point (that Fr. Heer's is just straight out wrong on this point) but is, in your view, less offensive. If you can do that, I will edit the video.
@@ubipetrus3882 thank you for the offer. I am certain that you could make the point better than I could (without implying that Fr Heers is untrustworthy). But my feeble attempt is: "But who would you look to for perfect dogma? A fallible man, or the infallible seventh Ecumenical council?" As for the offense; have you considered that the reason Fr Heers will not disclose who his bishop is, is due to the nature of the problem? If he were to say who his bishop ought to be, he would be incriminating, or at least sullying the reputation of a bishop, and push the issue into a worse state. Also, have you reached out to Fr Heers regarding this question of defining an Ecumenical Council? I think he would give you an ear.
@@ubipetrus3882 1. No, I am not. To be clear, the only statement that I am calling into question is this: "Who should we trust more? The Seventh Ecumenical Council, or a priest who won't tell anyone who his bishop is?" You mention Fr Heers by name prior to this, and I think rightly so, because he does teach what you says he teaches, and you make a valid point. But the above statement does not contribute much to your point, and I think the implication what is unfair to Fr Heers. By all means, mention him by name, and contest his teaching on this point. 2. There are many possible scenarios, and I do not want to speculate too much. But from my understanding, the issue arose after his transferring jurisdictions. He made a statement of who his bishop was, and then that bishop made a statement that Fr Heers was not under his omophiron. At that point, Fr Heers ceased commenting on who his bishop was. For this reason, I think it is prudent to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as the saints often instruct us; and assume Fr Heers is withholding comment and bearing the shame like a Christian for the sake of decorum and so as not to speak against any bishop on a point unrelated to dogma. And we may also assume that no bishop is necessarily at fault, but that it was a matter of miscommunication and politics. However, as for a scenario in which Fr Heers' speaking would incriminate a bishop-- if he were to say anything definitive as to who was his bishop currently, it would put that bishop at fault for having denied being his bishop. How could he not have a bishop without having been defrocked? Not to mention the fact that there is tension between the two patriarchates involved. If ROCOR has released a statement that Fr Heers is in good standing, I do not think that attacking him on his ecclesiastical standing is legitimate, though I realize this statement may have been made after you released this video. 3. I am glad to hear that have spoken to him about it. Have you made a video dedicated to this subject that you can direct me to?
@@WoodchuckNorris.8o So, a priest who is without a bishop, as the statement released by SCOBA on Heers states, is a priest who cannot canonically teach as they have no authority and, as far as can be seen, justifies my position (after the fact). This just comes off as special pleading mixed with piety signalling that can be taken advantage of by anyone. For example, in your scenario, I could claim I am a cleric and use the same excuse yet no one would be allowed to verify my claim under the guise of showing Christian charity. It happens more often then defrocking and, off the top of my head, I have known several priest who were canonically released to no one in particular but just kicked to the curb and left to plead their case to any bishop who will take them. One was eventually picked up by Antioch and then released again (he's probably died of alcoholism by now) and the other was released by the OCA after he abandoned his argumentative parish (I have no clue where he is now). A third was a ROCOR WR from SoCal who was chased out due, I heard, to financial scandal. Another was an OCA priest who ended up in Antioch after his OCA mission chased him out after a major funder left due to a dispute with him but he was then taken back into the OCA (this was 20 years ago so my memory is foggy). Dedicated to the conversation he and I had? No, I would not make a video about something that minor.
we all know the Latin church has lost it's appreciation of prayer. there is a prayer that explains very well Mary's state- "Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is With Thee. Blessed Art Thou Amongst Women...." enough said.
I am catholic, not looking for a debate but just some clarification. How binding is the Synod of Jerusalem on the faithful today? Are its doctrines enforced or considered "inspired"? Is it considered a "local" or "universal" synod?
I don't know about Lofton or his personal store of knowledge, but most professional RCC's who bring up the contraception "debate" know that contraception did not begin to exist with the 20th century medical industry, nor did it begin to "become controversial" until 20th century law began to allow it. I can forgive Protties for thinking this, because I used to be one, and to us, history is just some murky "dark age" the Enlightenment takes us out of, somehow. However, like you said, the issue has had universal Patristic support and, until recently, no confusion at all, to the point where we can say that even Bishops who declare otherwise are incorrect - much like a certain Pope and same-sex "blessings." We can just as much ask why it took 1900 years for a Pope to clarify the issue. Even divorce is definitive: it is not allowed. I've even caught fantastic Orthodox apologists slipping on the language here. Hieromonk Kosmas (IIRC) has a talk making this clear: they take place for the same reason the Patriarchs were "allowed" multiple wives (despite being Saints and far holier than I'll ever be): sin, weakness, and hardness of heart so significant and widespread that it universally changes the social core around the Church. And without being childish about it, let's be clear: annulments are Western economia. And that's me giving a **lot** of charity here. Marriages fail due to explicit apostasy (or unrepentant implicit apostasy in the case of an abuser or cheater), not because one of the parties must have been secretly unwilling at the altar or on one Xanny too many or whatever.
@@ubipetrus3882 On articles of the faith and on church history from an orthodox perspective. I corresponded with you many months ago via youtube comments (as a Traditional Catholic) before finally finding out that my positions I previously held at that time are now completely untenable. This was in great part due to reading the book "The Sedevacantist Delusion" as well as a few other Orthodox writings. Now I'm looking for just a list of Orthodox sermons to replace the former Sedevacantist ones. Any help is appreciated. Thank you again.
Ah, ok. if you don't mind me asking, which name did you use when we interacted? I would first recommend Trisagion Films. The other is "Orthodox Teachings of the Elders." The former is almost entirely in English while the latter has subtitles. I would start at those two YT channels. Please let us know what we can do to help you.
23:00 I have another désagreement. I don't think only the Constantinopolitan patriarch, nor only patriachs of the Penta (tetra) rchy, is able to call a council. In fact the one able to call council is, quite clearly, the one who de facto can gather the bishops. If you're not an emperor (and in fact, even if you are) it's really difficult. And I don't think why it would be a spécial prerogative of the Constantinople see (or Alexandria, Antioch, Jérusalem). Where in the canons is it stated ? Is it in antiquity, in the first 1500 years of the church ?Who invented such an idea ? It seems quite a modern idea and a show of Constantinopolitan papist tendency, coming from the empowerment of it as the chief of all christians by the ottomans. You said "canonical prerogative" what does that mean ? I want to see the canon, if it's a canonical prerogative.
Read this and notice who agreed with it. The only Church to abstain was Antioch and that was because they were not planning on coming anyway: holycouncil.org/procedures
Is natural family planning considered as contraception under this view? So its a sin and its a sin to have sex when a woman is non-fertile, am I understanding this correctly?
@@purplelegendxd6024 I know that answer but since this video discusses this I'm asking for a clarification. I'm not going further than the video itself, I just want to know if I understood it correctly
Yes NFP is considered as contraception, but one which allows more than even those few patristic sources which speak on the subject allow. In the end, it is between a married a couple and their priest, under the bishop. It was always this way. There was no need for Rome to try to lay down a rule for all, and when it did, a whole mess ensued. Part 2 of this series will deal with this subject some more. Stay tuned.
No, because Conception is doing something, to prevent conception. Natural family planning is NOT doing something. So it can't be contra-ception, because its not doing something to actively frustrate conception. That would be like saying robbing a bank, and going up to the teller and withdrawing money are really the same thing, becasue in both cases, money left the bank. Artifical contraception is a sin, becasue it violates the openness to fecundity of the act. Natural family planning is not. In the Second, there is no negation of the total gift of self, no witholding of fecundity, and no violation of any of the other sacramental vows. NO, you have not understood correctly. Sex after fertile years is not a sin, becasue one has not not interfered in the total gift of self in the integrity ofthe act. By God's design sex can't always result in conception. In both NFP and sex after normally fertile years, no infringment on God's design has taken place in the act.
@@ubipetrus3882Brother, hello! Sorry for the bad English, I write through Google translator. My friends have the same problem. 15-20 people have already tried to subscribe to Star, but nothing happens.
@@disgustingcyclops6423 I think the issue is that we paused payment while we wait for the second video to come out. This happened the last time we paused payment, too but it only happened to some people while others were able to sub - I have no clue as to why but when we turn on payments again, we will notify everyone so that anyone who wants to sub can at that time.
Question... In watching many debates over the validity of the papal claims I noticed that nearly every argument is centered around the meaning of "rock" in Matthew 16:18 or some typological interpretation of Isaiah. I've also heard apologists like Lofton refer to the Formula of Hormisdas as evidence, but after reading that several times I just don't see what the big deal is. Anyway, my question is.. why is the possibility that Peter never even went to Rome never brought into the discussion? After researching this a bit it actually seems like a very plausible possibility. The evidence for him in Antioch yeah okay I can see that, but in Rome? How could St. Paul never mention him in Romans when he gives accolades to others if they were in fact in Rome together? All of it just doesn't add up. I recently came across this gem, St. Peter Never at Rome: The Historical Argument by William Arthur Darby. The e-book is available for free. Is this just not a popular view among Orthodox? Thanks.
Other two disagreement 1) I don't think the Constantinopolitan patriarch has any role of "ratifying" our councils more than any other bishop 2) I don't really believe agreement of all Patriarchs/local church is necessary and the ultimate criteria for a council to be eucumenical Was Constantinople 1 uneucumenical because Rome didn't participate, and became when they ratified it at Chalcedon ? Was Ephesus uneucumenical because Antioch didn't participate and became once they accepted it ? Was Constantinople 2 uneucumenical before pope Vigilius agreed to cooperate ? Was in Trullo uneucumenical before the pope ratified at Nicea 2 ? Was Nicea 2 (and by extension, in trullo) uneucumenical before the pape ratified it at Constantinople 4 (880) ?
An Ecumenical Council according to the Papists is any Council the Pope of Rome says is an Ecumenical Council as long as he says that it is an Ecumenical Council. Different Popes have different lists so what was an Ecumenical Council in the days of your grandparents may not be an Ecumenical Council in the days of your grandchildren. Everytime a New Pope is elected a Papist has to change his Religion. As the Rock upon which the Church is built is the Pope of Rome.
That;s answered in the video. If you would like a more precise answer, we answer questions only from paid subscribers (especially on a free video like this in which we are not gaining subs) and those can be submitted here: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
@@shanesolar3924 That video goes into detail on it. I'd also reco.mend John T. Noonan's "Contraception" as it is the standard work on the topic of contraception, et al. in the patristics.
This presentation is blatantly wrong on many of its points. It is in fact a great demonstration of grasping at straws. One example among many is the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow over Ukraine. The presentation claims the dispute is about who the mother Church of the Ukrainians is and not about a difference in doctrine concerning the granting of autocephaly. That is refuted by Constantinople's official synodal documents on the topic as well as through her official representatives. Constantinople's official position along with those who agree with her is that in the absence of an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople alone is the one who can grants autocephaly. The other Churches cannot do so, even if they are "the mother Church." That is why the OCA is not officially recognized at Pan Orthodox meetings and why many local Churches recognize the OCU as an autocephalous Orthodox Church. The presenter in the video using only the Slavic position to present "Orthodoxy" only demonstrates the hopeless disunity in doctrine and refutes his own point about a so-called "unity," of Orthodoxy, which doesn't actually exist and is amply demonstrated by him.
I cannot believe he brought up whether it is unclear Oriental Orthodox or ACoE fathers/ecclesia (exclusive to them) should be excluded from our Fathers/Ecclesia. I'm just baffled. **ROME was a part of these events.** I thought that the Pope was supposed to have lorded it over us by his own presuppositions. Why does he think we were internally as unclear as the Gnostics, to fill in the name he doesn't want to pronounce here (no pun intended)? If we were as confused under the Pope as he states, what good was he, then? If we could not tell, in the first millennium, who was Orthodox and who was heretical in Alexandria and Antioch, what good was he, then? If we could not tell, PRIOR TO THE GREAT SCHISM FROM THE POPE OF ROME, who was heretical and who wasn't, what good was he, then? If Rome was Orthodox in the first millennium - and he'd be in serious trouble if he didn't think Rome was - then the extant state of confused affairs he claims was the case will not only lose the Papal debate RCC apologists have with Orthodox, it'll lose that same debate with respect to **Protestant objections,** as it is made in the face of - not despite of - the many Council-addressed heresies the Protestants now regard as "nonessential" in every denomination this side of the Orthodox [sic] Presbyterians. His mischief returns on his own head.
Im a catholic so im sorry if im wrong, but couldnt a response to micheal be, "as orthodox we had that authority head, it was rome, till rome decided to schism?
There has been a radical shift in the Orthodox Church with regards to contraception. It was considered sin and now, starting in the middle of the 20th century, it is not sin. How is something sin for 1900 years and then now considered not a sin? So much for being the "unchanging church".
We dismantle those claims right here: th-cam.com/video/fGO8sXtlHd4/w-d-xo.html In the same video, we also go through the opinions of figures such as St. Augustine and previous Catholic canon law such as delayed ensoulment, abortion prior to ensoulment as only a venial sin, sex outside of fertile periods as equal to abortion, etc. So much for the RCC being the "unchanging Church."
@@ubipetrus3882 Yeah, that video didn't address why the EO changed on contraception. Prior to the Lambeth conference ALL Christians: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox taught that contraception was a sin. EO changed along with the Protestants.
It was briefly touched on the video, but I think a dissertation of Mormonism would make an interesting video, there's isn't much Orthodox Christian commentary on it online
@@ubipetrus3882 Wow! Never heard of it, how convenient none of his videos showed up when I searched on this topic 🤔 thank you so much for the recommendation!
Hopefully I'm not saying this out of pride, but I think it would be good to not be too critical of Michael Lofton or any Catholic spokespersons, which I think is being done at the beginning of this video. Harshness against the arguments is fine, and I understand if it's a matter of responding in kind, but as someone who agrees with you I am almost dissuaded from listening because of how personal the introduction is. If I were a catholic I would be unlikely to listen more than a few minutes, I think. I'm glad you guys do a great job with the arguments, and I don't think you guys are rude or cruel, just that you already elevate the content of the conversation's quality and can, perhaps, help elevate it even more in spirit.
I don’t know, apologetics (in its more straightforward sense of defensive argumentation) isn’t supposed to be some demonstration of piety or holiness. This game that RC apologists online play (Lofton in particular) and even Protestants like Gavin Ortlund-one of marauding as the more “charitable” or “irenic” interlocutor and piety-signalling in lieu of directly confronting argumentation by accusing Orthodox apologists for their lack of “charity” is not one that we should be playing. Since when was debate more about being “nice” and less about the facts on the table? It’s such a modern, liberal-influenced way of thinking to prioritize a subjectively “charitable” presentation of argumentation over the argumentation itself. People who are searching for the truth and nothing but the truth will see through the façade that these types of apologists put up; those who are easily swayed by their inappropriate rhetoric (in the context of debate, at least) and prefer charades over facts will find the “truth” that gives them the comfort and security that prevents them from facing reality for what it is. That’s why I’m personally okay with _most_ of the allegedly uncharitable behaviour on the part of Orthodox apologists-it just seems more honest and transparent to me than the alternative their detractors would promote.
I don't disagree that there are issues with the overabundance of "charity" that is something of a rhetorical method (perhaps a genuine rhetorical method and not a cynical one, but a rhetorical method nonetheless, which is what I think Ortlund kinda does). Nor do I think we need to be nice, especially for the sake of bad arguments. But I think we don't need to be personal. Most of this video is fantastic in terms of avoiding the personal, but my thought has more to do with the fact that the arguments themselves only matter if someone hears them. Arguments are for truth, and truth is for people to see and live in. Arguments, in my view, should also be presented for people just as much as they should be presented for truth, particularly when we're addressing people who are not Orthodox, since extra... child's gloves, I guess, is needed to persuade them to something they don't have a personal obligation to be persuaded to. I guess I would say this seems like an excellent video for the Orthodox listener, but not the Catholic nor Protestant listener. It seems possible to accomplish just as much without burning any sensitive bridges that don't need to be burned.
The people who would disregard the history and rich spirituality of the East due simply to the alleged "lack of charity" from a few online personalities like us are the people who wont stay during persecution either. In other words, we don't need them nor do we want them and you should be thankful we are weeding them out. The reality is that the don't really care about charity and that's not the reason they refuse to engage. They go on and on about how charitable Seraphim Hamilton is...but they still won't debate him or respond to his videos (I wonder why?). They're fine with engaging with our behavior and running to social media to tattle on every little Twitter comment we 'like', but they're somehow morally above responding to the content of the videos on remarriage and divorce, contraception, papal claims, etc. That doesn't strike you as odd? Apparently broadcasting what they consider as our fault to the world doesn't cross a red line that actually responding to our content would. It's almost as if...they don't have answers to the arguments and are simply trying to avoid admitting that.
@@ubipetrus3882No. It was because there was philosophical debate, at the time, as to when ensoulment occurs and the Council fathers wanted it clear that we are born as composite body-soul at conception. Mary was sinless from the time of conception or birth which is synonymous.
WWWWWWooooooooowwwwwwwwwww....... man, poor Lofton, is just looking for peace from his confession, and the Latins have totally robbed him over some auttistic brain washed dribble. Utterly catastrophic.
But it's not up for debate. The Council Of Constantinople IV 869 A.C. declared that the anathema is forever: " We command that those who do not share this view, but give Photius their willing support, if they are bishops or clerics, must be deposed for ever; we anathematize monks or lay people, until such time as they are converted from their false ways and wickedness." The eastern unorthodox sects today are supporters of Photius including Cerularias. "Forever" means that all the ordinations of the Photian supporters are invalid, no one in this Council gave eastern schismatics the right or power to validly ordain bishops without Pope NIcholas' approval. Photius was condemned as a forgerer: "{Now the council strikes out on its own} "This is what happened in recent times through the folly, cunning and evil machinations of the wretched Photius. He entered the sheepfold not through the door but through a window, and, like a thief or a robber, a destroyer of souls, as the Lord’s words indicate, has tried, on every occasion and by every means, to steal, slaughter and destroy the right-thinking sheep of Christ and, by engineering all manner of persecution, he has not ceased from contriving numerous arrests and imprisonments, confiscations of property, protracted periods of exile and, in addition to these, accusations, charges, false testimonies and forgeries against all who worked for true religion and fought for the truth." If Pope John VIII claimed to have revoked an infallible Council, it would have made him an AntiPope like Honorius, it doesn't mean that the so called abrogation was valid. No pope has the right to overthrow a Council or Canon, as Pope saint Leo states in his epistle, but the Pope himself has a right to stop an anathema or canon from being introduced in the time of a Council provided it's an orthodox judgment. Furthermore, Pope Marinus and the other successors of Pope John VIII never reinstated this so called abrogration by John VIII, there's no continuity to this claim, rather they reinstated the Council of Constantinople IV 869 A.C.. IF eastern and western fathers at an ecumenical council condemned Photius as a forgerer, then it is clearly obvious that he managed to do another forgery besides the ones that encited the Council in the first place. The fathers are literally telling you that he is a forgerer and anathematized forever thereof. Secondly, this has nothing to do with Rome "exceeding its bounds or jurisdiction". There were many eastern bishops at Constantinople 869 A.C.. IF you look at the east today, alot of those easterns held on to the notion of the papacy and continued to follow the notion of the papacy up to this day, though for other reasons they are heretics today [eg. being in communion with AntiPope Francis and setting up idols and endorsing pagan scholasticism and superstitions]. SO my point is the idea about "Rome introduced the papacy out of no where and that's why the east split" is totally insanse and illogical. The pseudo-maronites for example, the so called "catholic coptics", and etc, had no problem with the papacy nor did they ever claim that Rome introduced this new dogma over them to rule over them. The title "Eastern orthodoxy" is a heretical attempt to acclaim the great schism of 869 A.C as the true church over Patriarch Saint Igantius of Antioch who did not want to abandon the papacy, but this fails according to your own reasoning, for those eastern unorthodox sects disagree and anathematize each other and don't even agree that they belong to one deposit of faith. Hence eastern "orthodoxy" is actually eastern unorthodoxy.
@@ubipetrus3882 It would have to be when I am not working, on the Lord's Day, which many of you call "sunday" in the same manner of unorthodox pagans. Secondly, don't sit here and pretend to be a staunch "apologists" of the orthodox faith when your so called "orthodoxy" is wrecked on all levels and is actually unorthodox. I recently watched your video with an asian Vatican II heretic who calls himself a "neophyite", it was posted 2 years ago. In this video, you continually refer to him and his people as "catholics". There's no such thing as a heretical catholic and theres no such thing as a heretical "orthodox christian". A Christian is orthodox and catholic, a Christian is a baptized follower of Jesus who is orthodox and belongs to the catholic church. A Heretic, or one who is excommunicated for crimes such as crimes against morals, is not a Christian. What's worse is you stated things like, "whoever leaves the catholic church because of Francis is wrong, that is wrong". Are you insane? So if a heretic finally discovers that Francis is a heretics and Antipope and leaves his pseudo-catholic sect, you would condemn such people as making a bad decision? Do you not understand that Patriarch/pope Saint Athanasius along with many orthodox fathers taught that no one who calls a heretic "a Christian" has the slightest idea about the faith and creed? Before you desire to debate, these are the kind of things you should address, especially if you claim to be orthodox. And you never answered the question as to why millions and millions if not a billion eastern pseudo-catholics sided with the notion of the papacy if the east was supposedly operating different to the roman church for the first 1000 years.
11:43 I think he does know what the dogma is. I think your critique of his words here are perhaps a bit petty, but ultimately Mr. Lofton should have been more precise with his words.
@@ubipetrus3882 I agree with you, please see more than the word "petty." I just mean he was talking and probably just accidently said "from birth" instead of "from conception." I mean, it is called "the immaculate conception." Kinda hard to officially screw that up. We all make mistakes while talking.
@@ubipetrus3882 Also, I am an Orthodox Christian, and I despise Michael Lofton and his shenanigans. I also felt like this was the only section which was completely out of place in the context of your well thought out and researched video. Every other point was air tight and I learned a lot.
The irony is that you seem to match the smugness of Lofton and even go further than it. Considering the blessed mother is like shooting a scud missile at a tangerine? Slow your roll orthobros. But ok, if we can't cite patriarchs who can we cite? Who is the modern authority on Orthodoxy? And no citing Ware isn't like citing James Martin
You failed to address (or grasp) the entire point. It’s like you did not even listen to what your responding to. The way some you people respond to criticism is so cult-like.
@@ubipetrus3882 Please pardon my lack of “charity” and “nuance”, but it seems many of the other retractors have the same issue. It’s like they listen with the intent to restate what’s directly addressed.
@@ubipetrus3882 Yes, it is not the most engaging lecture I've listened to and if he goes over that specific point please poont to it. Think I got through the first 50 min so if he addressed that afterward I apologize but this is the internet and I do think just getting some immediate clarity is worthy of a post. You could just address the question rather than saying "he didn't listen carefully enough".
@@Sergi25026 What is cult like about that? If I didn't listen shouldn't you just address my point and tell me where it is in this video instead of claiming "cult-like" status and assuming I don't "grasp" something?
All due respect, you didn’t refute anything on disunity due to a lack of a Magisterium. Essentially, from your perspective each area is responsible for it’s own dogma. You didn’t list any centralized authority that all could appeal to. You said that local synods could possibly come up with a local agreement. That is all well and good but there is no central beliefs on many things. Like rebaptism (often occurring in Orthodoxy), some believe in Toll Houses, some don’t etc. in addition, I read and watch Orthodox sources all the time and the Council of 2016 is often an example of the disunity that can result. Four Patriarchs didn’t attend and many didn’t acknowledge it as authoritative, so what did it accomplish? Antioch is in schism with Jerusalem, Moscow in schism with Constantinople, not to mention the mess with Ukraine. Protestantism fails bc everyone is essentially their own Pope, I think orthodoxy suffers from a similar problem in that each Patriarch (or even Bishop) is essentially a Pope and that creates almost as many problems. How can anyone solve anything if they won’t even meet to have an ecumenical council? It results in what happened in 2016, recognized by some but not by others. I’m not saying the Papacy is perfect either but I can see how that system is more efficient.
You'll need to timestamp where I supposedly made the claim that each area is responsible for its own dogma (i.e. could formulate dogma on its own). Again, you'll need to timestamp what you are referring to with local synods making a local agreement. Can you cite an official document from an autocephalous Church that states converts from RC and Protestant backgrounds are to be rebaptized? How familiar are you with the reception of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th ecumenical councils? No, they are not. For the time being. Such schisms were failrly normal in the first millennium. So you think that each patriarch has universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction in their own patriarchate and can speak infallibly? Why, especially now, do we need to physically meet in order to make agreements? Can't we just state our assent to a document? Honest question.
Absolutely devastating
inb4 Lofton dodges the debate and/or commands that you must go to confession for making this video
To Orthobros.
Not very nuanced of you :(
timestamps for Ubi’s responses to Lofton
response 1: 7:04
response 2: 19:01
response 3: 26:34
response 4: 29:14
response 5: 33:41
response 6: 37:26
response 7: 42:27
response 8: 44:41
response 9: 47:08
response 10: 49:13
response 11: 51:16
response 12: 53:44
response 13: 1:02:41
response 14: 1:04:51
response 15: 1:12:16
response 16: 1:14:39
response 17: 1:17:11
response 18: 1:21:06
response 19: 1:30:12
response 20: 1:32:23
response 21: 1:34:13
response 22: 1:39:44
response 23: 1:41:48
response 24: 1:44:37
feel free to add this to the video description!
you the real MVP
Thanks for the time stamps
Nice
Nuanced, highly charitable, greatly distinguished, most definitive and so very nuanced. Ubi has outdone themselves again.
This was the most charitable, nuanced, and hyper-qualified video on TH-cam. It is truly beneficial to the soul.
How charitable and generous of you. 😅
Interesting that Lofton admits that some of the issues with the EO today are similiar to those of the early Church. That is because the ecclesiology of the EO is the same as that of the early Church.
That is a very good point.
This point also contradicts Vatican 1.
@@ubipetrus3882 Hey Ubi, your content is part of the reason why I became Orthodox!
I was wondering if you ever got around to making the refutation video about the Dimmonds' attack on Palamism
@@Cavirex Contact Perry Robinson (same name on FB) and @Acolyte83349490 on Twitter. He also has the YT channel "Energetic Procession" found here: www.youtube.com/@EnergeticProcession
He is the one writing/editing the script and you should contact him as, the last I heard, only one script out of six for the planned six part series has been completed in the last two years.
@@ubipetrus3882 thanks for the answer. God bless you
As a Byzantine Catholic I do hope Erick Ybarra and Michael Lofton will be open to accept the offer. Would be great to see Jay Dyer, Perry Robinson, and Ubi Petrus doing back to back Tag Team debate going through Catholic teachings one by one. As a Catholic I can attest that Jay Dyer, Perry Robinson, and Ubi Petrus are honest and genuine with their approach. If we do seek the truth there's no need to avoid the offer just accept it. Truth is open to vulnerability and scrutiny. In fact it would embrace and confront it to be tested and verified. I agree with you Ubi Petrus that while Cretan council not accepted by Georgia, Bulgaria, Antioch, and Russia, the Creedal canons are unanimously accepted by all Orthodox. That alone to me is a serious conversation that any Catholic must not be afraid to discuss. Great work my brother, God bless!
Most likely, he is referring to the documents before the council. IIRC, five of the seven points were unanimously accepted. The other two had only one or two parties who abstained.
Can't be in a Church that has two creeds.
Become Orthodox. Eastern Catholicism is a hollow imitation.
Former lay Catholic Apologist here.
“far too par for the course.” ok big mike
Ybarra's been running for years. I'm a former lay Catholic Apologist who's been Orthodox 20yrs.
Ybarra's been running from me for years. He can't handle the Truth. He's absolutely refused to debate me. Lofton is a thinner version of Y'barra.
The quality of Catholic Apologists has decreased exponentially the last 30yrs. Many, like I, have become Orthodox.
He won't respond. He's incapable of it except to slander.
A basic examination of the First Millennium Councils and Canons clearly shows there is no papal Supremacy. It's starts there in Canon 6, Nicea. The Vatican admitted to this fact in paragraph 19 of the Cheiti Agreement 2016. He knows that. He's in total denial. He lacks any intellectual integrity. He's a coward.
Yes...YOU Mr. Y'barra! I was an RC Apologist when the Catholic Church changed its doctrine on baptism BACK to the Orthodox belief in 1992 with zero announcement. The change just appeared in the Cathecism.
Catholic Apologists KNOW they can't debate Orthodox Christians and win. I knew it as a Catholic Apologist too!
"Come and see" what you're clueless about Mr. Y'barra.
I used to work/correspond with Michael Voris. I' kept him informed on the Chicago, Rockford and Joliet Diocese for years. I'm the reason why he had to remove a commentary where he ended it saying, "...go to an Orthodox Church" in 2004 less than 24hrs after it dropped.
Voris and I had a heart to heart. He knows he's fighting a losing pointless battle. I pray one day he can put away his pride and come home to Orthodoxy.
Tell us more about how you've been scamming your own people, then.
@@batmaninc2793Pseudo-orthodox Dyer doesn't represent us (Ubi does), just like pseudo-catholic Lofton doesn't represent Catholics. Btw Batman is demonic filth forbidden in Christianity, so take it off please.
@@Matthew_T23 Don’t ever say he’s wrong in anything he does. Ask those from his inner circle, which Lofton covers from someone’s forum. They’ll doxx you, even priests. He spends the money from fans who buy his relatively fruitless products to buy ganja and get high while reading the catechism and sacred scripture.
@@batmaninc2793argument?
Ubi is hands down my fav Orthodox channel. I remember when I was inquiring into Orthodoxy, I had many questions about their view on Catholic papal claims and how to interpret the historical data. Along comes this channel with a single video that absolutely knocked it out of the park; glad to see the quality has never diminished. Ubi is my go to recommendation for inquirers/catechumens who have questions similar to the ones I had.
As a Catholic, I found Mr. Lofton's criticism of the recent lack of "Pan Orthodox" councils bitterly ironic. The Catholic Church, of course, did hold a "universal" council: Vatican II. Whatever else it may have achieved, Vatican II can hardly be deemed a dogmatic or liturgical success. No Western bishop can "opt out" of a council called by the pope. In light of Vatican II, that is not exactly a "selling point" for Lofton's claims.
Why does he seem to be so obsessed with Orthodoxy? Just considering pure numbers, we're like nothing in the West. Why bring a sledgehammer to squash a fly? It's like he has to constantly justify his apostasy.
He's jealous.
He’s paid by Catholic Inc to do apologetics against traditional Catholicism and especially Orthodoxy. Given his dubious background as a “former orthodox” member, Catholic inc found him suitable for this purpose. He serves as a “wall” to prevent novus ordo normies to going rad trad to Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholics from going to Orthodoxy as well.
Lofton calls Orthodox “Protestants with apostolic succession” and then later says the early church was chaotic and gives a progressive Protestant idea of doctrine and praxis as if the apostles did not hand down THE faith but a seed that needed to be watered either by the pope, which is the Protestant view just replace the pope with the Bible.
You will never hear from Lofton. If he truly believed in his position he would readily debate. I suspect there is also a lot of guilt, as down deep, he knows he is deceiving his audience. Very well done Ubi, devastating to the RC position!
Lofton avoids and censors even Catholics who challenge his opinion or attitude. All the best trying to get him to interact with the Orthodox response/perspective.
I might use this as one of my go-to videos to send people for why they shouldn't be Roman Catholic. Both formerly as a Protestant and now as an Orthodox, I never understood why so many people found the typical Catholic polemic about the papal dogmas to be so compelling. This exposes just how weak that polemic actually is.
They were compelling to me after reading the Catholic catechism cover to cover two or three times, plus Ott and a host of the more accessible apologists (Pitre, Hahn, Bergsma, Barber et al). The narrative is framed expertly, and at least to me was very convincing when only consuming Roman Catholic resources. Upon further reading and digging, the narrative is shifting in my head. What appeared to be patriarchates disobedient to Rome, now seems more and more clear that it was Rome breaking away from the pentarchy and creating what seem to me to be numerous innovations.
because papal supremacy is true and is demonstrable in scripture and tradition. you eastern “orthodoxes” are the ones in schism and nothing you can do will change that. your “church” is even crumbling before you. convert before it is too late
@@Sicilianus I have seen many attempts to demonstrate it in scripture and tradition. None of them work. And no, the Orthodox church is not crumbling. If you're referring to something like the schism between Moscow and Constantinople, that's nothing compared to the schism the Roman church had the Protestants. There's a massive, ongoing, 500 year schism for you. No such thing has ever happened in the Orthodox church.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed you’ve seen “attempts” because you ignore them to match your own theology. and yes your “church” is crumbling, so are the protestants. the Catholic Church remains strong.
if the Catholic Church isn’t the true church btw, eastern “orthodoxy” still won’t be true due to the buddhist pagan prayer of palamas.
@@Sicilianus Where does Traditional Roman Catholicism remain strong in your local Nursing Home perhaps? What makes you believe that the Roman Catholic Church will still institutionally even exist 100 years from now and if it does that it will even remain remotely Christian?
ML still does not get Jay's point regarding our different paradigms. For him, his religion is to be studied and drilled into his head. For us, the lived reality embodies the totality of our faith. He will never get it, it seems.
If "lived realities" is criterion for faith, on what basis do you deny other religions, then?
@@floridaman318 I doubt I even mean what you imply. We do not sit around and figure out our faith (as it has become a sport for Roman Catholics of our times). It is handed down to us and is encoded in the very manner in which we live. You all seem to assume the Papal understanding of religion, therefore insist on imposing it on us.
@@Nina_Mo2 The faith is handed down in actual, true Catholicism. You are confusing the fact that theologians think and analyze the Faith to come to a better understanding of it with innovation. Also, popes do not make new doctrine, only explicitly clarify and define doctrine in finality. The papacy is the last court of appeals, so to speak, when there are disputes or misunderstandings, as there have always been from the beginning.
@@floridaman318 Rome was the last court of appeal in matters of praxis, not dogma. The councils granted Rome the position of court of appeal for priests and bishops who felt they were wrongly deposed and could not find justice in their own jurisdiction. This same privilege was later granted to Constantinople. As ever, RCs are simply ignorant of church history.
@@floridaman318
So Vatican II is not a new innovation? I thought you are sede?
if you ever want to destroy your liver, take a shot every time Lofton says "magisterium" or "objective", lol
"He addresses a viewer in the chat, who goes by the name of "Smoked Pork Ribs"" Love the dry pan humor.
Your ability to say “smoke pork ribs” with the same tone as the rest of this presentation impressed me.
So, in summary:
1. Good for thee but not for me; and
2. Orthodox don't have defined dogma because their academics disagree but Catholics do have defined dogma, even though their academics disagree.
I have been consistently appalled by how poorly constructed Lofton's arguments are. In fact, I can't even classify them as "arguments" (for example, the assertion that the "Orthodox can't have an ecumenical councils" simply assumes what needs to be demonstrated: namely that post-schism Orthodox councils are invalid while Catholic councils are valid). It's more akin to CNN-style narratives constructed by blatantly biased partisans.
Also, it should be noted that while Lofton calls us "Protestants with Apostolic succession" (a contradiction in itself), this is not the position of the actual, Catholic Magisterium. The Catholic Church affirms that the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in terms of sacramental grace, that Catholics should not try to convert us, and it acknowledges that we (the Eastern Church) never accepted Vatican 1 style papal claims.
The Catholic Church affirms that the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in terms of sacramental grace and that Catholics shouldn’t try to convert the Orthodox? Where? I‘ve never heard of that.
@@zavoh227 That the Orthodox Church lacks nothing in sacramental grace, you can find it in Unitatis redintegratio, Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Balamand Statement and in other documents. On the issue of converting Orthodox, this has been an ordinary Papal teaching since at least JPII. It's repeatedly taught by Francis today. See documents Ut unam sint and Orientale lumen.
Overall I am a fan of R&T. But your right when it comes to this particular area of conversation. Having read quite a bit of Saint JP2, I would agree with your assessment.
This is the best. I have been waiting for a video on these dogmas. What the RCC magisterium is, was explained too. Thank you Ubi.
I recently brought patriarchal ratification up to Lofton in the comments section of a recent video of his. After several attempts to accuse me of "misrepresenting him," his only response was "this approach begs the question." That's it. Crickets afterwards.
Claiming you've misunderstood or misrepresenting him following by being blocked is Lofton's modus operandi. You're a rare find in that he didn't block but only ignored you.
In the live chat to his attempt at a response to us, Lofton made a comment claiming that we (Ubi) don't understand Lofton's position and he isn't going to respond (ironic, right?). If that is the case, why not go through the video we did, clip by clip, and clarify what was said?
@@ubipetrus3882because he is a coward and dont have any courage to look up to your points?
My issue with Lofton is that he has a weird obsession bashing Orthodox TH-cam channels by having on other ppl who claim to be Orthodox to bash them. Then he acts above it as if he has some unearned moral high ground. Opening statement 100% accurate
47 min in and already gold. Well done again.
Dogma NEVER really mattered to the Roman Catholic Church because The Church has never (and most likely will never) issued a specific list of Dogmas which ALL Catholics must believe. They never did this (and most likely will never do this) because if they did so then they would never be able to "change" their theological positions as they have consistently been doing for well over a thousand years.
I said it before and I say again, when that Ubi tune hits I come running 😤🏃
This is very informative Ubi, but...
*Inhales smugly*
Did it ever occur to you that you liked a parody account that made fun of Eric Ybarra's weight, thereby invalidating anything that you said, have ever said, and ever will say? ...what do you mean "genetic" fallacy? My fallacious reasoning comes from my upbringing, not genetics.
Ubi went to the Jay D school of dialogue.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 As does the guy who bullied Lofton in high school, the guy who flipped him off while he was driving on the way to the grocery store, etc. They all lack charity, dawg.
Lofton has the "insecure bully" vibes going on so it'd be more likely a case of "as do the people Lofton bullied in high school".
@@ubipetrus3882 I feel like the degree of behavior on Lofton and Co's part speak more of a person who would be a bully in the classical sense if he could (but couldn't and therefore was bullied) so he had to resort to cry-bullying to bully others. Their behavior legitimately reminds of certain toxic family members that I grew up with. The type who will slander you behind your back and then fake cry when you confront them.
Can we also start holding Matt Fradd to account as well?
Here is his comment about Ubi after Ubi’s debate with Suan:
For what it's worth I'd like to apologize for thinking badly of Ubi. I had heard things about him that, given this debate, don't seem to be true at all. He was both intelligent and gracious.
-Pints with Aquinas
Despite this supposed revelation, he has continued having on cronies like Lofton on his show to denigrate the Faith, while refusing to provide the Orthodox a platform. Ubi can correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like the Orthodox should be given an opportunity to represent themselves on PwA after all the drivel on that channel coming from Ybarra, Lofton, etc. (not to mention Fradd sporting shirts depicting Orthodox saints)
Here's the thing: Fradd, Lofton, Ybarra, Albrecht, Flanders, Yasi, Sonna, and Horn are in a sort of "Novus Ordo but Uniate old boys' club" that's 'Catholic Answers Adjacent.' They cover for each other, they don't hold one another to account (it appears Ybarra and Yasi knew about Lofton's "living situation" but kept milking R&T for attention instead of quietly stepping away until the situation was rectified), and they spotlight one another repeatedly. I don't think any of them are necessarily competent or necessarily good at anything and that is what makes them accessible" mediocrity for the mediocre masses. The center of their thought is Pope Francis and how to justify and rectify the things he says. This is why justifying the papal claims is so incredibly important to them and appears to be the bread and butter of Lofton, Ybarra, Sonna, and Yasi.
You have lots of other Catholic apologists that don't fit into that category but my main interaction is with that group because my interest is history and they tend to focus on history.
If I recall correctly Fradd no longer attends a Uniate parish.
I remember him sharing on one of his shows after he moved that he wanted to reclaim his western heritage or something to that effect.
This is just speculation but I imagine novus ordo parishes in Steubenville are probably a great place for catholic apologists to make business connections.
PWA is a catholic channel and doesn’t owe any Orthodox a platform tbh
@@ubipetrus3882 "I don't think any of them are necessarily competent or necessarily good at anything" brutal.
I know this is a year old but Ubi is going on PWA to debate Erick Ybarra on the papacy in December
Now this is the kind of rebuttal I’ve been waiting for! Bravo!
He wears his own presuppositions so thoroughly on his sleeve that it's like watching a parody of Catholics
SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Saint Optatus
"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD
Saint Jerome
“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD
Saint Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Saint Ambrose of Milan
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
Till this day i will never understand Catholics who use Saint Cyprian to prove Vatican 1/papacy.
Does someone want to point out to Anthony where in our other videos and articles these quotations are dealt with? About half of them have already been addressed by us.
@@mariorizkallah5383St. Cyprian literally said, "The authority of the bishops forms a unity, of which each holds his part in its totality.”
smh 😮
These kind of quotes seemed convincing arguments for the claims of Vat1 when I first encountered them (esp in Ray's "Upon this Rock"). Then I kept digging. Among other sources, Denny's "Papalism" does an excellent job of offering historical context. From my perspective, the RCC are expert at framing narratives..."ok class when you read 'keys to the kingdom' just remember what Jesus meant there was what we teach in session 4 of Vatican 1, got it?"
@@johnsayre2038 same when I was catholic, finding quotes like this was amazing, then you look at the history and contextualize everything and it doesn’t lead to what vatican 1 teaches. And tbh and no disrespect, it seems like Catholics use the church fathers like Protestants use sacred scripture, quote something out of nowhere and out of context. Their favourite one is “rome has spoken the case is finished”, and we all know the context to that one lol
Double standards of Mr Lofton's arguments have been embarrassingly exposed. We'll see if Mr Lofton has capacity to respond to the invitation.
49:27 he says they have an objective Magesterium, but I can't find a RC that can tell me what that is.
Can't wait to see ML sperg-out over this in text-form
It looks like he already has. Notice the comments from "Michael Speyrer." It's the same vocab, talking points, and phrasing that you see in his comments under videos on his TH-cam channel.
At 13:00, are you guys being cheeky about the lack of debate in the 19th century surrounding the RC dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception? There clearly was opposition within RC, before Pius IX gurgled his nascent infallible voice: "Pius IX had already tested infallibility, when in 1854 he declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of “which some of them [bishops] dreaded and some opposed, but [to, sic) which all submitted when he had decreed without the intervention of a council." Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power, Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books, 1972, p. 305., in Two Paths by Michael Whelton, p. 72. Protecting Veil Ed.
Surely you get the point. The doctrine wasn't being openly opposed prior to this, There was no great "heresy" or movement against it. Sure some bishops were uncomfortable when they saw it coming down the line, but that doesn't mean it was a matter of huge debate at the time. Many were uncomfortable, arguably, because they saw it as unnecessary.
Similarly with VI definition on papal infallibility. Many Latin bishops didn't want it defined. It wasn't a matter of debate. But it got defined and they fell in line. Such is the way the Roman church runs, at least since Trent.
Likewise there was no debate or "heresy" regarding the Assumption. Listen to the argument. Look at the history. Not some scholar's take on the history, but the actual historical context.
When the councils met to define dogma, it was always in response to some widespread heresy that demanded correction. Such was not the case with either IM or Assumption.
But here's the rub: why didn't the pope just declare ex-Cathedra the creed, instead of holding Nicea and Constantinople 1? Or why not declare Monophysite a heresy at Chalcedon, rather than submit a tome for the council to consider? Answer: because the church of those times was completely alien to the Vatican I mentality. It held councils, and considered the view of the pope of Rome along with the views of all other brother bishops. The councils spoke. The pope was just another voice at said councils. Because the pope was just another patriarch.
Really, which bishps dreaded it? And how does the author know this?
AFAIK, Pope Pius IX requested the bishops survey their clergy and laity on the IC and the results came back overwhelmingly in favor of defining the IC. I would be hesitant in quoting Whelton as he tends to rely on sweeping generalizations and any little thing he can find, regardless of how insignificant, to take digs at the RC. I don't use his material, period.
Michael Lofton has no answer to this video!!
Well the trouble with feelings is, you can't argue with them.
Then the points should be easy for you to engage and easily dismantle, Michael.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 lol lofton in dummy account
It seems as though RCs only like to quote Met. Kallistos Ware and his Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew, neither of whom are exactly well know for being orthodox in their Orthodoxy.
In this case I don't think it is so much they are running to the most modernist sources, but they restrict themselves to only introductory level English language resources. Unfortunately, in scholarly discussions in Orthodoxy or this topic in general, if you only know english you are severely handicapped.
Excellent points, as usual! The personal pettiness, however, makes it so that I can never share your content with my catholic family members, which is a shame since you have the best stuff out there and I think it'd be convincing to them. Please consider producing stuff that only addresses ML's arguments and not him personally. Ordinary people will use your "trolling" as a way to not engage with your arguments, which is all too easy to do anyway for someone who is trapped in the papist frame of mind. Don't give them the excuse!
Do you realize how incredibly boring these videos would be without the jabs? People love watching a fight.
We are all adults bro. We can take a polemical jab here and there and wake up the next morning the same as any other day. The obsession for the lack of any polemic whatsoever is best suited for a college class, not a video addressing a particular apologist. Men have been using polemics in their arguments since the days of antiquity. Have you read much of the Church Fathers? They throw jabs at their openents all the time.
One point Lofton brings up is about the filioque, yet even Catholics hold different views on that. Bonaventure definitely had a different understanding (see his video with Jared Goff on the discussion). Yves Congar also mentions that catholics should remove the filioque from the creed as a sign of good faith, does Lofton believe that? Of course if the Catholic church did how would that not contradict what it has done for roughly 1000 years and thus falsify infallibility?
There are so many views on grace so many views on what doctrine itself is. Some of them will even cite this diversity has the “Catholic” nature of the church
No they don't. They have different views of the attonment, not the filoque. The Filoque is an optional statement. There was some debate about that, not about the meaning of the filioque.
You dont' even understand the difference here, but with Ortobro it anyway.
@@michaelspeyrer1264
Can you explain the difference bonaventure had as pointed out by Dr Jared Goff on R&T, where he thinks it might be possible to use as a point of agreement between the two churches then? Since you obviously don't orthobro anything 🙄
You could also provide an answer as to why St Maximus' letter to Marinus states a filioque that's different to the one today?
Also could you explain whether the Son is a cause like how it's understood by Greeks as mentioned in the florence & if that's different to the Catholic understanding today?
@Conquering Death imagine a unified church with two creeds LOL especially on something as fundamental as the *filioque.* This choice of churches really isn't difficult. But demons are strong.
The Church can remove the filioque from the creed, the same way it added it to the creed, that doesn’t change the fact that the teaching is correct.
Brilliant-but I expect nothing less from Ubi!!
Excellent video and well organized. Would like to see Lofton respond or debate you.
Your very first video and this video are a one two punch. covers all the bases.
Lets be charitable, dawg.
Let's take it like men and have a sense of humor, dawg.
@@ubipetrus3882 😂
Devastating critique of Michael Lofton. Please do a review and critique of Erick Ybarra's new book about the papacy. Thank you!
We actually respond to it right here from 12:25 to 18:36: th-cam.com/video/P_TDtigCn0k/w-d-xo.html
Got a question for you guys.
Did Christ establish a kingdom or a democracy/republic/federation etc?
He established a kingdom of which Christ is the king and the bishops are his vassals who rule in his place until His second coming.
@@ubipetrus3882 so, at least for the church here on earth, there's no clear head or let's say a chief steward or a prime minister perhaps over the Master's household?
@usdadsasda347 I'm just curious what, from the Orthodox perspective, the structure of the church actually is, whether at least here on Earth it is a kingdom or a democracy or a republic or a federation or brotherhood or some other conception.
@@Silverhailo21 If "the Church" is, as St. Ignatius's ecclesiology indicates, the bishop surrounded by his presbyters and deacons, that would mean the bishops is the head and chief steward of the Church. Now, what you are trying to get at is a universal steward and head and that depends entirely upon what "steward" and "head" mean. Exactly what does "chief steward" mean amongs a group of "chief stewards." What makes a bishop the chief steward in his diocese is that he's the only bishop.
@usdadsasda347 sure, in an invisible sense, I get that. But it's not an actual monarchy here on Earth, more like a republic of bishops?
Excellent and brilliant takedown. Great job👍
Hey Mr. Ubi,
I was wondering if you or someone else could provide a link to the chant in the intro? Thanks
It was specially created for us by a sound engineer when we first started.
@ubipetrus I see. Thank you for responding! God bless!
I think he's hiding comments on his page. He doesn't want to respond to you.
The poll we put up asking about this has it at 85% saying he will chicken out so who is really surprised?
He blocked me and I have no idea why lol
@Vespalusian Gold I’m in the same situation as you haha not sure when I got blocked or what could’ve triggered it lol
Hey brother can I get a source on the claim about the Coptic and oriental counter hierarchies not being created until the 6th century. The usual sources just say “after the council of Chalcedon” with no clear evidence or document I can point to to my Coptic and oriental friends to show them this.
Send it in over SubscribeStar and we'd be happy to answer it: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
I believe that the whole point of Reason and Theology. as Michael intends it, is to provide an accessible public forum for discussion on issues concerning the differences between Catholic and Orthodox. Your criticisms are fair and valid. That is the point of dialogue. I look forward to continued discussion and clarification from both sides.
Michael is much harder on rad-Trad Catholics.
This video lacked charity, nuance, objectivity, and was not definitive.
But seriously, I think that Lofton's primary thinking error -- and we all have these... and they are much easier to discern and point out in others -- is a category error. He has it in his mind that the Church of Rome is different in kind from, say, the Church of Constantinople, Jerusalem, or Moscow. The historical reality, though, is that it is among the various Sees/Patriarchates that are all expressions of the Church of Christ. Granted, it has a unique history and was (rightly) held in high regard as long as it maintained adherence to the Gospel. In embracing this mistake, though, Lofton has somehow presumed that a pronouncement made by the Bishop of Rome or collectively by a Roman Synod is "definitive" and "objective" whereas the same pronouncement by any other See is not. Combine that with a spectacular level of pattern-match seeking, sophistry, and apparent-narcissism, and we have the wonder that is R&T.
Of course, any of us is vulnerable to thinking errors, and we desperately need others to point them out to us, for we often can't tell when our own minds have slipped off of the tracks. Hence the importance of avoiding the creation of echo chambers such as R&T seems to have created.
I do not look forward to the 132 hours of videos in 36 parts that Lofton, Ybarra, and others are going to produce in response to this, parsing your ambiguous use of the words "and" and "is."
That's because it is. That's because it is definitive. That's becasuse its not. The throwing in sophistry, and narcisism, is a nice Orthobro touch.
Not smdge of self rightous narcissim here. "Of course, any of us is vulnerable to thinking errors, and we desperately need others to point them out to us, for we often can't tell when our own minds have slipped off of the tracks."
@@michaelspeyrer1264 , I've no idea what to make of your comment here. Was there something you wanted to discuss?
@Modus Ponens It lhonesty looks like a Michael Lofton sock account.
@@ubipetrus3882 I’m Orthodox and even I’m appalled by the utter lack of charity, attacks, and senseless targeting. It’s getting harder to defend this by the day.
@@Sebastian-ct5ek Then go to another channel where they're super charitable, don't attack, and have sensible targetting. The handful of people who feel the need to tell us we're "uncharitable" and critique our method aren't important to us because we think you're thin-skinned humorless whiners perpetually offended for someone else. So do yourself a favor and never listen to this channel again.
Wow! That was detailed! Keep up the good work!
Now Ubi Petrus is British?
Probably a friend?
He sounds like TOEFL Instruction guy for me 🤣
He has people voice his videos. Orthodox pilgrim used to do it, but can't anymore, as I understand it.
@@kevinbimariga3895 Lol, agreed!
Sounds like a Midlands man, or a flat-capper (as a passionate Rugby League fan, I hope he takes that as a compliment).
Good video 👍 I'm Catholic and I will like to debate you, I will give you full permission to record it and release it with whatever critique you want, I'm humble and we will agree with more things then disagree (maybe) but looks like fun.
That sounds good but Saturdays are my day I can often have open for debates. I am starting a language class on January 7th and will be occupied with that until mid-April. Once I start this class, I will have a better time of how my Saturdays will work so let us stay in touch. If you are serious, please email me at ubipetrus2019@gmail.com.
Excellent content, thank you once again.
Definitive and absolutely devastating.
Will Lofton respond?
It looks like he might have tried to in the comments here under the name "Michael Speyrer."
So basically Lofton just wants a big daddy to tell him what to think?
What’s your video opening song’s name?
AFAIK, there's no name for it. It was created specifically for us by an audio engineer.
@@ubipetrus3882 it’s sounds pretty good. Delightful
Good stuff mate Lofton is an airhead
I have slight disagreements on some of your video
11:10 I don't think the confession of Dositheus is dogmatic. I abide by Krivoshein's position, that is the condamnation made by Dositheus are good, but certain aspects of his text are quite problematic, and that makes it an important historical text, but not a dogmatic/symbolic text.
For those interested, I advise you reading Krivoshein's article "les textes symboliques dans l'église orthodoxe".
And it's the same thing with Moghila's confession.
Btw, some of their theology isn't nowadays teached nor received by our church, but really ignored. And in some cases, it really doesn't fullfil the Lerintian criteria : that dogma ought to be what was believe by all, everywhere, since the beginning.
Furthermore, I think the lerintians criteria is ultimately what makes a council orthodox. How do we know that the Arian synods, Ephesus 2, those against Maximus and that of Hieria were not eucumenical synods ? Some of them had a lot of bishops in them, and a lot of patriarch also. While some of our own councils were lacking some patriarch and had a small number of bishop.
In my opinion, it's really its orthodoxy, that is, fulfilling the lerintians criteria and teaching the patristic consensus, that makes things dogmatic. It ought to have been teached everywhere, by everyone, from the beginning, and I may had, it must also have been received by everyone and teached to this day by all.
And really, it's not a big deal if we don't have an Infaillible Imam/Pope, nor any "clearly cutting/binding" authority in one of some man. It doesn't make the church less true.
If you want to know what I consider dogmatic in our church, it's all the 9 eucumenical councils, plus that of 1484, plus all synods mentioned by the synodikon of orthodoxy and the synodykon of the Holy Spirit
All of that is without any error, reflecting the ancient, universal and patristic consensus, and teached and believed to this day.
@@ubipetrus3882
1) I don't think Krivosheine and Crete's Chapter 3 are necessary incompatible. Crete doesn't explain much but accept these councils for their "refutation of protestantism" while Krivosheine argue the same : that it ought to be accepted only as condemning protestant heresy and we shouldn't take everything develloped in the confession as face value. Furthermore, the council of Crete doesn't refer explicitly to Dositheus or Bethléem, but rather to a synod organised at Constantin in 1972. It turns out there is one such synod, who condemned Lukaris, before Dositheus decided to expand it alone (in fact, with a few jerusalemites bishops and priest in Bethlehem) with its confession. (For more on the history, read the article by Krivoshein, wich bases himself on Karmiris).
So, if I was forced to abide by Crete (wich I don't feel I am), I could I think very much interpret that reception in the encyclical in a Krivosheinian way, that is, without thinking everything in Dositheus confession is binding dogma
@@ubipetrus3882 2) I think it's a bad argument from you. It's really because heresies are new, from some guy and then his disciples, in a place somewhere, that we know they are heresy.
When an heresy appears, it doesn't collapse the consensus patrum of antiquity, but because we have the consensus patrum of antiquity, we know it is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered.
So we have a consensus that is from the apostle, and every time a new heresy appear, they are automatically considered unorthodox in their teachings, so not to be counted in the consensus for the next centuries. The lerintian criteria doesn't précise it, but I think it's very obvious that the "from all" means "from all orthodox".
@@ubipetrus3882 Some of our ECs did lack for some time (in certain cases, centuries) the full assent of various legitimate synods :
- Constantinople wasn't accepted by Rome until Chalcedon
- Ephesus wasn't accepted by Antioch until the Tomos of Reunion (iirc)
- Chalcedin wasn't accepted by Alexandria until the bishops got home and elected a patriarch
- Constantinople 2 wasn't accepted by the pope before him being excommunicated by the council in retaliation. And I don't know I there really was a Roman synod, but the great majority of western bishops were against it, and there was even a schism in the Italian peninsula itself, with important sees such as Aquileia, Milan, Liguria, Aemilia, Grado. The recognition of the council by the west took much time and the schism healed only fully in 723.
- In Trullo (so part of Constantinople 3) wasn't accepted by Rome until Nicea. But because Nicea wasn't accepted either, it wasn't accepted until the Photian council of 880
- Nicea wasn't accepted by Rome until the Photian council of 880
The question being : were all those synods not dogmatic/Binding before they were really fully accepted by every independant church/synod ?
1 hour 30 min mark had me rolling
Michael Spreyer in the comment section is most likely carbohydrate Lofton. The comments are just the typical garbage laughable rhetorical statements he usually expresses.
Thank you for a devastating rebuttal to R&T and Michael Lofton.
God Bless !
Tried to subscribe on Subscribestar but there's no option to - I see from the comments here that this is due to payments being paused. Is there any ETA on when those will be restarted?
Hopefully within the next month. Our narrator, Earl, has been dealing with personal issues and so has been unable to finish the narration so OP has kindly stepped in and is doing us a solid but that means he has to start the narration from scratch. He thinks he should have it done in three weeks and then Lewis will need two weeks to do the video production. We just posted a YT community note asking for researcher-writers and narrators.
So is it “what has been believed everywhere, always, by all” or is it “all the patriarchal synods ratify it”? If it is both how are the two related? Thank you
The synods ratify and confirm what has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
Thanks for this great quality content
36:15 you very easily could have made your point without throwing Father Heers under the bus. You very easily can disagree with him on one point without attacking his whole character.
Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on your to prove that so I'll offer you this: rephrase the pertinent section in a way that conveys the same point (that Fr. Heer's is just straight out wrong on this point) but is, in your view, less offensive. If you can do that, I will edit the video.
@@ubipetrus3882 thank you for the offer. I am certain that you could make the point better than I could (without implying that Fr Heers is untrustworthy). But my feeble attempt is: "But who would you look to for perfect dogma? A fallible man, or the infallible seventh Ecumenical council?"
As for the offense; have you considered that the reason Fr Heers will not disclose who his bishop is, is due to the nature of the problem? If he were to say who his bishop ought to be, he would be incriminating, or at least sullying the reputation of a bishop, and push the issue into a worse state. Also, have you reached out to Fr Heers regarding this question of defining an Ecumenical Council? I think he would give you an ear.
@@ubipetrus3882 1. No, I am not. To be clear, the only statement that I am calling into question is this: "Who should we trust more? The Seventh Ecumenical Council, or a priest who won't tell anyone who his bishop is?"
You mention Fr Heers by name prior to this, and I think rightly so, because he does teach what you says he teaches, and you make a valid point. But the above statement does not contribute much to your point, and I think the implication what is unfair to Fr Heers. By all means, mention him by name, and contest his teaching on this point.
2. There are many possible scenarios, and I do not want to speculate too much. But from my understanding, the issue arose after his transferring jurisdictions. He made a statement of who his bishop was, and then that bishop made a statement that Fr Heers was not under his omophiron. At that point, Fr Heers ceased commenting on who his bishop was. For this reason, I think it is prudent to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as the saints often instruct us; and assume Fr Heers is withholding comment and bearing the shame like a Christian for the sake of decorum and so as not to speak against any bishop on a point unrelated to dogma. And we may also assume that no bishop is necessarily at fault, but that it was a matter of miscommunication and politics.
However, as for a scenario in which Fr Heers' speaking would incriminate a bishop-- if he were to say anything definitive as to who was his bishop currently, it would put that bishop at fault for having denied being his bishop. How could he not have a bishop without having been defrocked? Not to mention the fact that there is tension between the two patriarchates involved. If ROCOR has released a statement that Fr Heers is in good standing, I do not think that attacking him on his ecclesiastical standing is legitimate, though I realize this statement may have been made after you released this video.
3. I am glad to hear that have spoken to him about it. Have you made a video dedicated to this subject that you can direct me to?
@@WoodchuckNorris.8o So, a priest who is without a bishop, as the statement released by SCOBA on Heers states, is a priest who cannot canonically teach as they have no authority and, as far as can be seen, justifies my position (after the fact).
This just comes off as special pleading mixed with piety signalling that can be taken advantage of by anyone. For example, in your scenario, I could claim I am a cleric and use the same excuse yet no one would be allowed to verify my claim under the guise of showing Christian charity.
It happens more often then defrocking and, off the top of my head, I have known several priest who were canonically released to no one in particular but just kicked to the curb and left to plead their case to any bishop who will take them. One was eventually picked up by Antioch and then released again (he's probably died of alcoholism by now) and the other was released by the OCA after he abandoned his argumentative parish (I have no clue where he is now). A third was a ROCOR WR from SoCal who was chased out due, I heard, to financial scandal. Another was an OCA priest who ended up in Antioch after his OCA mission chased him out after a major funder left due to a dispute with him but he was then taken back into the OCA (this was 20 years ago so my memory is foggy).
Dedicated to the conversation he and I had? No, I would not make a video about something that minor.
18:00 Becuase there is no Eastern Explaination for the process by which Mary's state is accomplished.
Please elaborate.
we all know the Latin church has lost it's appreciation of prayer.
there is a prayer that explains very well Mary's state-
"Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is With Thee. Blessed Art Thou Amongst Women...."
enough said.
29:20 I don't think the photian and palamite synods were at all in Limbo concerning recognition. Nor the 1484 council in fact
The Palamite Synods have and had liturgical commemoration.
I am catholic, not looking for a debate but just some clarification. How binding is the Synod of Jerusalem on the faithful today? Are its doctrines enforced or considered "inspired"? Is it considered a "local" or "universal" synod?
That's explained in the video: it's been accepted by all of the synods so its teachings are binding upon the faithful.
I don't know about Lofton or his personal store of knowledge, but most professional RCC's who bring up the contraception "debate" know that contraception did not begin to exist with the 20th century medical industry, nor did it begin to "become controversial" until 20th century law began to allow it. I can forgive Protties for thinking this, because I used to be one, and to us, history is just some murky "dark age" the Enlightenment takes us out of, somehow. However, like you said, the issue has had universal Patristic support and, until recently, no confusion at all, to the point where we can say that even Bishops who declare otherwise are incorrect - much like a certain Pope and same-sex "blessings."
We can just as much ask why it took 1900 years for a Pope to clarify the issue.
Even divorce is definitive: it is not allowed. I've even caught fantastic Orthodox apologists slipping on the language here. Hieromonk Kosmas (IIRC) has a talk making this clear: they take place for the same reason the Patriarchs were "allowed" multiple wives (despite being Saints and far holier than I'll ever be): sin, weakness, and hardness of heart so significant and widespread that it universally changes the social core around the Church. And without being childish about it, let's be clear: annulments are Western economia. And that's me giving a **lot** of charity here. Marriages fail due to explicit apostasy (or unrepentant implicit apostasy in the case of an abuser or cheater), not because one of the parties must have been secretly unwilling at the altar or on one Xanny too many or whatever.
Does anyone know where one can find any good Orthodox sermons??????
On which topics specifically?
@@ubipetrus3882 On articles of the faith and on church history from an orthodox perspective. I corresponded with you many months ago via youtube comments (as a Traditional Catholic) before finally finding out that my positions I previously held at that time are now completely untenable. This was in great part due to reading the book "The Sedevacantist Delusion" as well as a few other Orthodox writings. Now I'm looking for just a list of Orthodox sermons to replace the former Sedevacantist ones. Any help is appreciated. Thank you again.
Ah, ok. if you don't mind me asking, which name did you use when we interacted?
I would first recommend Trisagion Films. The other is "Orthodox Teachings of the Elders." The former is almost entirely in English while the latter has subtitles. I would start at those two YT channels. Please let us know what we can do to help you.
@@ubipetrus3882 I used the name "Frank Pontone" when we interacted. Thank you so much for these recommendations.
23:00 I have another désagreement. I don't think only the Constantinopolitan patriarch, nor only patriachs of the Penta (tetra) rchy, is able to call a council.
In fact the one able to call council is, quite clearly, the one who de facto can gather the bishops. If you're not an emperor (and in fact, even if you are) it's really difficult.
And I don't think why it would be a spécial prerogative of the Constantinople see (or Alexandria, Antioch, Jérusalem). Where in the canons is it stated ? Is it in antiquity, in the first 1500 years of the church ?Who invented such an idea ? It seems quite a modern idea and a show of Constantinopolitan papist tendency, coming from the empowerment of it as the chief of all christians by the ottomans. You said "canonical prerogative" what does that mean ? I want to see the canon, if it's a canonical prerogative.
Read this and notice who agreed with it. The only Church to abstain was Antioch and that was because they were not planning on coming anyway: holycouncil.org/procedures
@@ubipetrus3882 Alright, they agreed on it there. So is it just an idea coming from 2016 ? Or is it more ancient ?
@@Haidouk-kw6ds Which other Church authority has called a pan-Orthodox synod? Also, which examples did I cite in the video?
Is natural family planning considered as contraception under this view? So its a sin and its a sin to have sex when a woman is non-fertile, am I understanding this correctly?
The answer it talk to your priest
@@purplelegendxd6024 I know that answer but since this video discusses this I'm asking for a clarification. I'm not going further than the video itself, I just want to know if I understood it correctly
Yes NFP is considered as contraception, but one which allows more than even those few patristic sources which speak on the subject allow. In the end, it is between a married a couple and their priest, under the bishop. It was always this way. There was no need for Rome to try to lay down a rule for all, and when it did, a whole mess ensued.
Part 2 of this series will deal with this subject some more. Stay tuned.
@@RealDukeOfEarl Thanks, I'll be tuning in.
No, because Conception is doing something, to prevent conception. Natural family planning is NOT doing something. So it can't be contra-ception, because its not doing something to actively frustrate conception. That would be like saying robbing a bank, and going up to the teller and withdrawing money are really the same thing, becasue in both cases, money left the bank.
Artifical contraception is a sin, becasue it violates the openness to fecundity of the act. Natural family planning is not. In the Second, there is no negation of the total gift of self, no witholding of fecundity, and no violation of any of the other sacramental vows.
NO, you have not understood correctly. Sex after fertile years is not a sin, becasue one has not not interfered in the total gift of self in the integrity ofthe act. By God's design sex can't always result in conception. In both NFP and sex after normally fertile years, no infringment on God's design has taken place in the act.
Why can I not subscribe to you on subscribe star? There is no subscribe button.
I'm honestly not sure why but I would recommend contacting SubscribeStar directly.
@@ubipetrus3882Brother, hello! Sorry for the bad English, I write through Google translator. My friends have the same problem. 15-20 people have already tried to subscribe to Star, but nothing happens.
@@disgustingcyclops6423 Have you contacted SubscribeStar about it? I have no idea what is happening.
@@ubipetrus3882 Not at the moment. if we can't to make a subscription today, then we will definitely contact technical support.
@@disgustingcyclops6423 I think the issue is that we paused payment while we wait for the second video to come out. This happened the last time we paused payment, too but it only happened to some people while others were able to sub - I have no clue as to why but when we turn on payments again, we will notify everyone so that anyone who wants to sub can at that time.
Question... In watching many debates over the validity of the papal claims I noticed that nearly every argument is centered around the meaning of "rock" in Matthew 16:18 or some typological interpretation of Isaiah. I've also heard apologists like Lofton refer to the Formula of Hormisdas as evidence, but after reading that several times I just don't see what the big deal is. Anyway, my question is.. why is the possibility that Peter never even went to Rome never brought into the discussion? After researching this a bit it actually seems like a very plausible possibility. The evidence for him in Antioch yeah okay I can see that, but in Rome? How could St. Paul never mention him in Romans when he gives accolades to others if they were in fact in Rome together? All of it just doesn't add up. I recently came across this gem, St. Peter Never at Rome: The Historical Argument by William Arthur Darby. The e-book is available for free. Is this just not a popular view among Orthodox? Thanks.
Send it in over SubscribeStar and we'd be happy to answer it: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
Because holy tradition tells us that St Peter was martyred at Rome
Eusebius EH 3:1-2 says that Peter came to Rome and was martyred there
other than my sligh disagreements, it's a really great video 👍
It’s Protestantism with apostolic succession. 😂🤣 what the hell! 🤣😂
Those guys are really ignorant. May Lord have mercy on this papal Protestants
Pretty much.
How long did it take you to edit his face to make him look like a different person?
No clue where that image came from, I didn't make the tag.
That's irrelevant
@@mirando100 You're irrelevant.
@Simon Laberge let me repeat it, It is not relevant.
Other two disagreement
1) I don't think the Constantinopolitan patriarch has any role of "ratifying" our councils more than any other bishop
2) I don't really believe agreement of all Patriarchs/local church is necessary and the ultimate criteria for a council to be eucumenical
Was Constantinople 1 uneucumenical because Rome didn't participate, and became when they ratified it at Chalcedon ?
Was Ephesus uneucumenical because Antioch didn't participate and became once they accepted it ?
Was Constantinople 2 uneucumenical before pope Vigilius agreed to cooperate ?
Was in Trullo uneucumenical before the pope ratified at Nicea 2 ?
Was Nicea 2 (and by extension, in trullo) uneucumenical before the pape ratified it at Constantinople 4 (880) ?
Define what you mean by "ecumenical." Are you using it in the historical sense or in the Roman Catholic sense?
@@ubipetrus3882 Hum, interesting. I'd say eucumenical means "dogmatic and binding" for everyone.
@@Haidouk-kw6ds How do you reconcile that with the fact that many councils, such as Hieria were called ecumenical but ended up being overturned?
@@ubipetrus3882 According to me, it's ultimately fulfilling the lerintian criteria that proves the eucumenicity/dogmatic nature of each council
@@Haidouk-kw6ds Ok, so who determines if it has met the Lerentian criterion?
So what is an ecumenical council precisely and exactly?
An Ecumenical Council according to the Papists is any Council the Pope of Rome says is an Ecumenical Council as long as he says that it is an Ecumenical Council. Different Popes have different lists so what was an Ecumenical Council in the days of your grandparents may not be an Ecumenical Council in the days of your grandchildren.
Everytime a New Pope is elected a Papist has to change his Religion. As the Rock upon which the Church is built is the Pope of Rome.
@@adolphCat Can you answer the question instead of behaving like a steteotypical online orthodox?
That;s answered in the video. If you would like a more precise answer, we answer questions only from paid subscribers (especially on a free video like this in which we are not gaining subs) and those can be submitted here: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
@@ubipetrus3882 yeah I'm not paying. Maybe one of your viewers will be able to answer.
@@tafazzi-on-discord It's handled in this video as well as several others that are out for free. No clue how you missed it.
I can’t understand how sex outside of fertile periods is sinful
It's not. But the idea of consciously determining to AVOID sex in the fertile periods
@@Thedisciplemike ohh ok I guess that makes more sense
@@shanesolar3924 Did you watch our video on contraception in the Church Fathers?
@@ubipetrus3882 no I have not yet
@@shanesolar3924 That video goes into detail on it. I'd also reco.mend John T. Noonan's "Contraception" as it is the standard work on the topic of contraception, et al. in the patristics.
Can you write an article about pope John XVI and the heresiarch Gregory V?
Who else would wear such a stupid shirt rhetorically asking "who started your church?" .....🙄🙄🙈🙈
This presentation is blatantly wrong on many of its points. It is in fact a great demonstration of grasping at straws. One example among many is the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow over Ukraine. The presentation claims the dispute is about who the mother Church of the Ukrainians is and not about a difference in doctrine concerning the granting of autocephaly. That is refuted by Constantinople's official synodal documents on the topic as well as through her official representatives. Constantinople's official position along with those who agree with her is that in the absence of an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople alone is the one who can grants autocephaly. The other Churches cannot do so, even if they are "the mother Church." That is why the OCA is not officially recognized at Pan Orthodox meetings and why many local Churches recognize the OCU as an autocephalous Orthodox Church. The presenter in the video using only the Slavic position to present "Orthodoxy" only demonstrates the hopeless disunity in doctrine and refutes his own point about a so-called "unity," of Orthodoxy, which doesn't actually exist and is amply demonstrated by him.
You need to show which "official documents" you are referring to.
You can read up on their views: orthochristian.com/113241.html
"No-Reason and Theology"
I cannot believe he brought up whether it is unclear Oriental Orthodox or ACoE fathers/ecclesia (exclusive to them) should be excluded from our Fathers/Ecclesia. I'm just baffled. **ROME was a part of these events.** I thought that the Pope was supposed to have lorded it over us by his own presuppositions. Why does he think we were internally as unclear as the Gnostics, to fill in the name he doesn't want to pronounce here (no pun intended)? If we were as confused under the Pope as he states, what good was he, then?
If we could not tell, in the first millennium, who was Orthodox and who was heretical in Alexandria and Antioch, what good was he, then?
If we could not tell, PRIOR TO THE GREAT SCHISM FROM THE POPE OF ROME, who was heretical and who wasn't, what good was he, then?
If Rome was Orthodox in the first millennium - and he'd be in serious trouble if he didn't think Rome was - then the extant state of confused affairs he claims was the case will not only lose the Papal debate RCC apologists have with Orthodox, it'll lose that same debate with respect to **Protestant objections,** as it is made in the face of - not despite of - the many Council-addressed heresies the Protestants now regard as "nonessential" in every denomination this side of the Orthodox [sic] Presbyterians.
His mischief returns on his own head.
daddy's back
Hey youve been gone for a long time. Just wanna check up your situation. Everything good?
Im a catholic so im sorry if im wrong, but couldnt a response to micheal be, "as orthodox we had that authority head, it was rome, till rome decided to schism?
There has been a radical shift in the Orthodox Church with regards to contraception. It was considered sin and now, starting in the middle of the 20th century, it is not sin. How is something sin for 1900 years and then now considered not a sin? So much for being the "unchanging church".
We dismantle those claims right here: th-cam.com/video/fGO8sXtlHd4/w-d-xo.html
In the same video, we also go through the opinions of figures such as St. Augustine and previous Catholic canon law such as delayed ensoulment, abortion prior to ensoulment as only a venial sin, sex outside of fertile periods as equal to abortion, etc. So much for the RCC being the "unchanging Church."
@@ubipetrus3882 Yeah, that video didn't address why the EO changed on contraception. Prior to the Lambeth conference ALL Christians: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox taught that contraception was a sin. EO changed along with the Protestants.
@@markrome9702 In the first 15 minutes, that video state why it is impossible to claim that we "changed." Watch the first 15 minutes again.
@@ubipetrus3882 Can you give me an Orthodox citation prior to 1930 that affirmed the use of contraception as morally permissible?
@@markrome9702 Can you give me an Orthodox citation prior to 1930 that universally condemned it?
The books behind Mr. Fake R&B Accent look like they've never been opened
It was briefly touched on the video, but I think a dissertation of Mormonism would make an interesting video, there's isn't much Orthodox Christian commentary on it online
Seraphim Hamilton (a.k.a. @Kabane52) has done several videos on it.
@@ubipetrus3882 Wow! Never heard of it, how convenient none of his videos showed up when I searched on this topic 🤔 thank you so much for the recommendation!
@@PabloCardonaMusic Here's one: th-cam.com/video/wJTkvno5wyw/w-d-xo.html
@@ubipetrus3882 thank you!
Hopefully I'm not saying this out of pride, but I think it would be good to not be too critical of Michael Lofton or any Catholic spokespersons, which I think is being done at the beginning of this video. Harshness against the arguments is fine, and I understand if it's a matter of responding in kind, but as someone who agrees with you I am almost dissuaded from listening because of how personal the introduction is. If I were a catholic I would be unlikely to listen more than a few minutes, I think. I'm glad you guys do a great job with the arguments, and I don't think you guys are rude or cruel, just that you already elevate the content of the conversation's quality and can, perhaps, help elevate it even more in spirit.
But I'm 30 minutes in or so and I have to say that this is a pretty high quality level of argumentation.
I don’t know, apologetics (in its more straightforward sense of defensive argumentation) isn’t supposed to be some demonstration of piety or holiness. This game that RC apologists online play (Lofton in particular) and even Protestants like Gavin Ortlund-one of marauding as the more “charitable” or “irenic” interlocutor and piety-signalling in lieu of directly confronting argumentation by accusing Orthodox apologists for their lack of “charity” is not one that we should be playing. Since when was debate more about being “nice” and less about the facts on the table? It’s such a modern, liberal-influenced way of thinking to prioritize a subjectively “charitable” presentation of argumentation over the argumentation itself. People who are searching for the truth and nothing but the truth will see through the façade that these types of apologists put up; those who are easily swayed by their inappropriate rhetoric (in the context of debate, at least) and prefer charades over facts will find the “truth” that gives them the comfort and security that prevents them from facing reality for what it is. That’s why I’m personally okay with _most_ of the allegedly uncharitable behaviour on the part of Orthodox apologists-it just seems more honest and transparent to me than the alternative their detractors would promote.
I don't disagree that there are issues with the overabundance of "charity" that is something of a rhetorical method (perhaps a genuine rhetorical method and not a cynical one, but a rhetorical method nonetheless, which is what I think Ortlund kinda does).
Nor do I think we need to be nice, especially for the sake of bad arguments.
But I think we don't need to be personal. Most of this video is fantastic in terms of avoiding the personal, but my thought has more to do with the fact that the arguments themselves only matter if someone hears them. Arguments are for truth, and truth is for people to see and live in. Arguments, in my view, should also be presented for people just as much as they should be presented for truth, particularly when we're addressing people who are not Orthodox, since extra... child's gloves, I guess, is needed to persuade them to something they don't have a personal obligation to be persuaded to.
I guess I would say this seems like an excellent video for the Orthodox listener, but not the Catholic nor Protestant listener. It seems possible to accomplish just as much without burning any sensitive bridges that don't need to be burned.
The people who would disregard the history and rich spirituality of the East due simply to the alleged "lack of charity" from a few online personalities like us are the people who wont stay during persecution either. In other words, we don't need them nor do we want them and you should be thankful we are weeding them out.
The reality is that the don't really care about charity and that's not the reason they refuse to engage. They go on and on about how charitable Seraphim Hamilton is...but they still won't debate him or respond to his videos (I wonder why?). They're fine with engaging with our behavior and running to social media to tattle on every little Twitter comment we 'like', but they're somehow morally above responding to the content of the videos on remarriage and divorce, contraception, papal claims, etc. That doesn't strike you as odd? Apparently broadcasting what they consider as our fault to the world doesn't cross a red line that actually responding to our content would. It's almost as if...they don't have answers to the arguments and are simply trying to avoid admitting that.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately this is far too par for course from the orthobro camp.
For a Catholic "Born without sin" = "conceived without sin" because life begins at conception.
born generally means the day you are born. conceived means the the fertilization 9 months before you are born.
amazing idiocy
Is that why the decree on the IC was at pains to differentiate between the two by repeatedly stating it was from conception?
@@ubipetrus3882No. It was because there was philosophical debate, at the time, as to when ensoulment occurs and the Council fathers wanted it clear that we are born as composite body-soul at conception. Mary was sinless from the time of conception or birth which is synonymous.
@@JayDyer You've just proved everything Lofton says about you is true!
WWWWWWooooooooowwwwwwwwwww....... man, poor Lofton, is just looking for peace from his confession, and the Latins have totally robbed him over some auttistic brain washed dribble.
Utterly catastrophic.
Conceived vs born is a distinction without a difference I’m 12:24 min in a stopping this clown show.
Don't you know the difference between conception and birth?
Is that why the definition of the IC made it clear it was at conception and not simply at birth?
mental illness
insulting Fr Heers is cringe
@@Barthoritarian it happens at 37:20. people's disposition to Fr Heers is a pretty good litmus test for how traditional one is
But it's not up for debate. The Council Of Constantinople IV 869 A.C. declared that the anathema is forever:
" We command that those who do not share this view, but give Photius their willing support, if they are bishops or clerics, must be deposed for ever; we anathematize monks or lay people, until such time as they are converted from their false ways and wickedness."
The eastern unorthodox sects today are supporters of Photius including Cerularias. "Forever" means that all the ordinations of the Photian supporters are invalid, no one in this Council gave eastern schismatics the right or power to validly ordain bishops without Pope NIcholas' approval. Photius was condemned as a forgerer:
"{Now the council strikes out on its own}
"This is what happened in recent times through the folly, cunning and evil machinations of the wretched Photius. He entered the sheepfold not through the door but through a window, and, like a thief or a robber, a destroyer of souls, as the Lord’s words indicate, has tried, on every occasion and by every means, to steal, slaughter and destroy the right-thinking sheep of Christ and, by engineering all manner of persecution, he has not ceased from contriving numerous arrests and imprisonments, confiscations of property, protracted periods of exile and, in addition to these, accusations, charges, false testimonies and forgeries against all who worked for true religion and fought for the truth."
If Pope John VIII claimed to have revoked an infallible Council, it would have made him an AntiPope like Honorius, it doesn't mean that the so called abrogation was valid. No pope has the right to overthrow a Council or Canon, as Pope saint Leo states in his epistle, but the Pope himself has a right to stop an anathema or canon from being introduced in the time of a Council provided it's an orthodox judgment. Furthermore, Pope Marinus and the other successors of Pope John VIII never reinstated this so called abrogration by John VIII, there's no continuity to this claim, rather they reinstated the Council of Constantinople IV 869 A.C.. IF eastern and western fathers at an ecumenical council condemned Photius as a forgerer, then it is clearly obvious that he managed to do another forgery besides the ones that encited the Council in the first place. The fathers are literally telling you that he is a forgerer and anathematized forever thereof.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with Rome "exceeding its bounds or jurisdiction". There were many eastern bishops at Constantinople 869 A.C.. IF you look at the east today, alot of those easterns held on to the notion of the papacy and continued to follow the notion of the papacy up to this day, though for other reasons they are heretics today [eg. being in communion with AntiPope Francis and setting up idols and endorsing pagan scholasticism and superstitions]. SO my point is the idea about "Rome introduced the papacy out of no where and that's why the east split" is totally insanse and illogical. The pseudo-maronites for example, the so called "catholic coptics", and etc, had no problem with the papacy nor did they ever claim that Rome introduced this new dogma over them to rule over them. The title "Eastern orthodoxy" is a heretical attempt to acclaim the great schism of 869 A.C as the true church over Patriarch Saint Igantius of Antioch who did not want to abandon the papacy, but this fails according to your own reasoning, for those eastern unorthodox sects disagree and anathematize each other and don't even agree that they belong to one deposit of faith. Hence eastern "orthodoxy" is actually eastern unorthodoxy.
When can you come on and debate this? You can have twice my time.
@@ubipetrus3882 It would have to be when I am not working, on the Lord's Day, which many of you call "sunday" in the same manner of unorthodox pagans.
Secondly, don't sit here and pretend to be a staunch "apologists" of the orthodox faith when your so called "orthodoxy" is wrecked on all levels and is actually unorthodox. I recently watched your video with an asian Vatican II heretic who calls himself a "neophyite", it was posted 2 years ago. In this video, you continually refer to him and his people as "catholics". There's no such thing as a heretical catholic and theres no such thing as a heretical "orthodox christian". A Christian is orthodox and catholic, a Christian is a baptized follower of Jesus who is orthodox and belongs to the catholic church. A Heretic, or one who is excommunicated for crimes such as crimes against morals, is not a Christian. What's worse is you stated things like, "whoever leaves the catholic church because of Francis is wrong, that is wrong". Are you insane? So if a heretic finally discovers that Francis is a heretics and Antipope and leaves his pseudo-catholic sect, you would condemn such people as making a bad decision? Do you not understand that Patriarch/pope Saint Athanasius along with many orthodox fathers taught that no one who calls a heretic "a Christian" has the slightest idea about the faith and creed?
Before you desire to debate, these are the kind of things you should address, especially if you claim to be orthodox.
And you never answered the question as to why millions and millions if not a billion eastern pseudo-catholics sided with the notion of the papacy if the east was supposedly operating different to the roman church for the first 1000 years.
11:43 I think he does know what the dogma is. I think your critique of his words here are perhaps a bit petty, but ultimately Mr. Lofton should have been more precise with his words.
I think the difference between conception and birth is more than just a matter of "precision."
@@ubipetrus3882 I agree with you, please see more than the word "petty."
I just mean he was talking and probably just accidently said "from birth" instead of "from conception." I mean, it is called "the immaculate conception." Kinda hard to officially screw that up. We all make mistakes while talking.
@@ubipetrus3882 Also, I am an Orthodox Christian, and I despise Michael Lofton and his shenanigans. I also felt like this was the only section which was completely out of place in the context of your well thought out and researched video. Every other point was air tight and I learned a lot.
@@TheForbiddenLean I saw more than the word "petty" - I quoted "precision."
@@ubipetrus3882 do you think I'm blind
The irony is that you seem to match the smugness of Lofton and even go further than it. Considering the blessed mother is like shooting a scud missile at a tangerine? Slow your roll orthobros. But ok, if we can't cite patriarchs who can we cite? Who is the modern authority on Orthodoxy? And no citing Ware isn't like citing James Martin
You failed to address (or grasp) the entire point. It’s like you did not even listen to what your responding to. The way some you people respond to criticism is so cult-like.
@@Sergi25026 In the handful of exchanges Joe Ruf and I have had, he never seems to pay attention.
@@ubipetrus3882 Please pardon my lack of “charity” and “nuance”, but it seems many of the other retractors have the same issue. It’s like they listen with the intent to restate what’s directly addressed.
@@ubipetrus3882 Yes, it is not the most engaging lecture I've listened to and if he goes over that specific point please poont to it. Think I got through the first 50 min so if he addressed that afterward I apologize but this is the internet and I do think just getting some immediate clarity is worthy of a post. You could just address the question rather than saying "he didn't listen carefully enough".
@@Sergi25026 What is cult like about that? If I didn't listen shouldn't you just address my point and tell me where it is in this video instead of claiming "cult-like" status and assuming I don't "grasp" something?
All due respect, you didn’t refute anything on disunity due to a lack of a Magisterium. Essentially, from your perspective each area is responsible for it’s own dogma. You didn’t list any centralized authority that all could appeal to. You said that local synods could possibly come up with a local agreement. That is all well and good but there is no central beliefs on many things. Like rebaptism (often occurring in Orthodoxy), some believe in Toll Houses, some don’t etc. in addition, I read and watch Orthodox sources all the time and the Council of 2016 is often an example of the disunity that can result. Four Patriarchs didn’t attend and many didn’t acknowledge it as authoritative, so what did it accomplish? Antioch is in schism with Jerusalem, Moscow in schism with Constantinople, not to mention the mess with Ukraine. Protestantism fails bc everyone is essentially their own Pope, I think orthodoxy suffers from a similar problem in that each Patriarch (or even Bishop) is essentially a Pope and that creates almost as many problems. How can anyone solve anything if they won’t even meet to have an ecumenical council? It results in what happened in 2016, recognized by some but not by others. I’m not saying the Papacy is perfect either but I can see how that system is more efficient.
You'll need to timestamp where I supposedly made the claim that each area is responsible for its own dogma (i.e. could formulate dogma on its own).
Again, you'll need to timestamp what you are referring to with local synods making a local agreement.
Can you cite an official document from an autocephalous Church that states converts from RC and Protestant backgrounds are to be rebaptized?
How familiar are you with the reception of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th ecumenical councils?
No, they are not.
For the time being. Such schisms were failrly normal in the first millennium.
So you think that each patriarch has universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction in their own patriarchate and can speak infallibly?
Why, especially now, do we need to physically meet in order to make agreements? Can't we just state our assent to a document? Honest question.