Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. In his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth..." He was erased from the diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. He wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He also said, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation: "We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defense of the Three Chapters." In this magnificent example of humility of the Orthodox Pope, we can also see true relation of the Bishop of Rome with regards to the Ecumenical Council - Pope was neither "infallible" in his dogmatic matters nor supreme over the Council. Any later Papal claims are thus - HERESIES. Case closed.
If you haven’t already, make sure to read Dr. Warren Carroll’s account of the Justinian / Pope Vigilius history, in The Building of Christendom. Explains it very well and compellingly
If you haven’t already, make sure to read Dr. Warren Carroll’s account of the Justinian / Vigilius history. He tells it very thoroughly and compellingly.
13:26 One reason I reverted and on one issue even before my conversion to Romanian Orthodox - filioque - is because St Athanasius (the hero of heros in patristics, the gold standard) clearly taught the doctrine, not just in the disputed quicumque vult, but also in letters. Another one is, Photius died in peace with Rome, and indirectly in communion with Franks teaching the filioque, while Caerularius missed out on some aspects of the chronology of the passion. Let's recall, the excommunication was immediately over Caerularius pretending "azymes" are illicit matter. And even invalid matter. He did this over pretending Christ "could not" have celebrated a normal legal torahic Seder. Why? Because He was crucified "on the day of preparation of the Jews" ... he missed that Christ and the Temple could have started Nisan on two consecutive days, if Caesarea Philippi spotted the new moon one evening before Jerusalem (which is further east), since the Jews didn't have a printed calendar according to a foreseeable programme (we can foresee the calendar of 2024, a leap year beginning on a Monday, unless a revolutution or Doomsday intervenes) but an empiric calendar, with observation of the new moon starting months, like Muslims have to this day (and a few years ago, Muslims in France started Ramadan on different days).
When we ask bad questions, we get incoherent answers. "... Discredit the Papacy?" The important question is not whether there is a Bishop of Rome, whether he had an honorific primacy, etc. The question is whether that bishop has supremacy over all other bishops, is infallible, etc. No one with any sense or knowledge of history questions the former. Almost the entire Church of Christ outside of Rome rejects and has never accepted Rome's claims about the latter. Even Rome acknowledges this. Part of the modern Roman apologist's tactic is to employ ambiguous, imprecise terms to confuse others into accepting their position. You all need to stop doing that. Indeed, the very need and compulsion to do so is evidence that the whole thing is a fabrication. So, if anything "discredits the papacy," it is really the behavior and tactics of contemporary apologists for Rome. "If you could show me one contradiction." Easy. Unam Sanctam clearly contradicts Vatican II regarding the necessity of submission to the Bishop of Rome as a condition of salvation. Clearly. Unequivocally. But the Roman apologists will wriggle out of this and the countless other contradictions by claiming "development of doctrine." In other words, we can explain away any contradiction using this magic wand.
There are no Catholics with enough integrity to admit what must be admitted. Rome has never been monolithic or wholly consistent. The decrees of the papacy and the councils have always been in conflict with other de fide teachings. There is no shame in that. Unfortunately, one cannot admit error and remain Catholic. If the Holy Spirit is protecting the church from error, then being “under duress” as a defense is inadmissible. I really like Ybarra, but “mulligans” and infallibility do not mix. He should be proclaiming to us here which Protestant denomination he is converting to.
This is rich coming from the Orthodox who demure about that council that they claim were "forgeries," or that they were forced to sign it. Putting our feet in our mouth, are we?
10:04 Let's distinguish "infallibility" and "inerrancy". The Bible is inerrant, but it could lead someone unwary astray, or rather allow someone to twist his understanding of it astray. It's basically for bishops or theologians rather than normal lay men. But the original and at least somewhere preserved version of the text cannot be factually wrong (either dogma or small fact). The Church is infallible. It could be wrong (in much, but not all of Tradition, as in Fathers) on a fact, as long as the fact did not affect dogma. Example : nearly all Fathers after St. Irenaeus (the exceptions being some of his contemporaries and only maybe a Gallican martyrology) identify the Beloved Disciple with one son of Zebedee, one of the twelve. As soon as he was an "apostle" in any sense, it still upholds revelation being completed before the death of the last apostle. If he was a Cohen and one of the 72, that's fine, even if most Church men since St. Irenaeus were factually wrong : _because_ they were not doctrinally wrong. It's like Aristotle's strongest argument for earth being round is sound _as an argument_ even if wrong as a fact : Magellan providing what "Ganges = Gibraltar" lacked. What matters is, a Gospel written AD 100 and a Revelation received AD 90 on Patmos were received and written with the competence of one who had known Jesus _and the Blessed Virgin_ - and this is correct even on the thesis of Fr. Jean Colson. So, the Church is infallible, but not factually inerrant. However, if _all_ Church fathers, including Papias and Asia Minor ones, remaining there (unlike St. Irenaeus, who left Asia Minor at 16), had said or shown agreement that the Beloved Disciple were the Son of Zebedee, then probably Church infallibility would have provided inerrancy on the case, even if the Church in principle does not have inerrancy. But the Bible actually having inerrancy is part of Church teaching over the centuries, and "Deutero-Isaiah" and "Yahwist-Elohist +" is not. Unlike the Cohen John as one of 72, this is not compatible with the sources' claims about the authorships.
And it proves, sedevacantism can be true at times. I think it was Stephen VI who claimed the see of Peter had been vacant in the day of Formosus. Whether he was right or wrong on Formosus matters less than the fact that he held it compatible with his Catholic doctrine that the previous "apparent" Pope (apparent from facts like recognition, coronation etc, not on all counts) was in fact no Pope. Confer some Vatican II:ers who _now_ compare Sedevacantism in all forms to heresy (I think I heard Fr Pine going on that theme).
@Thoska Brah Right now, I am technically speaking not Sedevacantist, but Conclavist. But this presupposes Sedevacantism being true back in the day when David Bawden was convoking an emergency conclave.
4:55 Is this why Pope St. Leo IX says that the decisions of the first see are "ex se irreformabiles, nisi quid supreptum sit"? In the first decree Vigilius was dealing with something "subreptum" - a swapped letter.
If Mr. Ybarra is looking for Papal pronouncements that potentially contradict Catholic teaching I wish he would grapple with this one sometime, for it is my favorite. The time when Julius II excommunicated ALL the citizens of Venice. What this meant, according to the laws of the day, was that any person who was a citizen of Venice could have been killed with no accrual of a sin or other penalty. This included innocent little children too, for everyone who was in Venice was excommunicated, and thus all could be killed with no consequences temporal or celestial. What this means is that the Church was effectively giving the OK to killing of innocents, and thus making it clear that under certain circumstances killing innocent people is just fine. And it is likely that some were killed, including children. Of course this hardly squares with the many statements that the Catholic Church has always been against such things, and always "Pro-Life". Nope. The history tells us differently. ---- Lastly I had to chuckle at the wink-wink feigned protestations by both fellows here that if they could not make the history coherent for themselves that then they might have to become atheists. That is not the way religious belief works, and certainly not for fellows like this. Pretty good acting though--- you get a celestial Oscar!
I don’t think this is a knock down punch for EO. Not close even. Respectfully disagree with Eric and for the reasons he explains so I don’t know why he would say that. Also 10:35 🤭
9:42 "two Isaiah, five writers of the Pentateuch" ... According to modern (very flawed) scholarship. On the topic of the Pentateuch, it holds up in Biblical history. Not identic, but akin to and included in dogma.
quite messy, from a practical and common sense point of view, vigilius was under duress, and the translation into latin provided to the pope was misunderstood. so for all intents and purposes, any pronouncements from the pope which is the fruit of duress from the emperor or pronouncements made from misrepresentation due to translation should be invalid, all of them, coming from vigilius. because valid rulings can only come from freely manifested pronouncements free from duress and free from misrepresentation or confusion. vigilius effectively made two invalid pronouncements, null and void, ab initio. no valid ruling came from vigilius effectively because of duress, misrepresentation and confusion, and that is why we have coptic Christianity. this would be a good subject for an ecumenical council to take up: invalidate the rulings of vigilius because of duress and misrepresentation/ambiguity/confusion from translation and his exoneration from the three chapters controversy; and hopefully a bull of union of the coptic church to the catholic profession of faith
yeah good luck interpreting it properly without the assistance of a magisterium that's been trained to understand and interpret it as accurately as possible
The canon of the Bible comes from the Pope. Why is the NT 27 books, like a council of Rome said and not 26 as one of Laodicea said, mid 4th C? Rome was, Laodicea wasn't the city of the Pope.
Count on a Catholic to discredit scriptural inerrancy while arguing for papal infallibility and supremacy. What a joke. Who do you worship? Christ or his disciples ?
Erick Ybarra is a Vatican II:er and therefore, while hoping to be a Catholic wrong about actually being one. Real Catholics do not discredit or attack Biblical inerrancy. They claim it both for and through Papal infallibility.
@@mariorizkallah5383 Supposing the schism is not on the other side, like those accepting it are schismatics. That would be the reasoning of Pope Michael.
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D5 | Fall | พลาดวันนี้ จะต้องเสียใจ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5-Cuo12p6A/mqdefault.jpg)
Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. In his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth..." He was erased from the diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. He wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He also said, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation: "We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defense of the Three Chapters."
In this magnificent example of humility of the Orthodox Pope, we can also see true relation of the Bishop of Rome with regards to the Ecumenical Council - Pope was neither "infallible" in his dogmatic matters nor supreme over the Council. Any later Papal claims are thus - HERESIES. Case closed.
If you haven’t already, make sure to read Dr. Warren Carroll’s account of the Justinian / Pope Vigilius history, in The Building of Christendom. Explains it very well and compellingly
If you haven’t already, make sure to read Dr. Warren Carroll’s account of the Justinian / Vigilius history. He tells it very thoroughly and compellingly.
Forgot to mention the book, The Building of Christendom
13:26 One reason I reverted and on one issue even before my conversion to Romanian Orthodox - filioque - is because St Athanasius (the hero of heros in patristics, the gold standard) clearly taught the doctrine, not just in the disputed quicumque vult, but also in letters.
Another one is, Photius died in peace with Rome, and indirectly in communion with Franks teaching the filioque, while Caerularius missed out on some aspects of the chronology of the passion.
Let's recall, the excommunication was immediately over Caerularius pretending "azymes" are illicit matter. And even invalid matter. He did this over pretending Christ "could not" have celebrated a normal legal torahic Seder. Why? Because He was crucified "on the day of preparation of the Jews" ... he missed that Christ and the Temple could have started Nisan on two consecutive days, if Caesarea Philippi spotted the new moon one evening before Jerusalem (which is further east), since the Jews didn't have a printed calendar according to a foreseeable programme (we can foresee the calendar of 2024, a leap year beginning on a Monday, unless a revolutution or Doomsday intervenes) but an empiric calendar, with observation of the new moon starting months, like Muslims have to this day (and a few years ago, Muslims in France started Ramadan on different days).
Interesting!
This just goes to show that not only is life sometimes messy, but history is as well.
When we ask bad questions, we get incoherent answers.
"... Discredit the Papacy?"
The important question is not whether there is a Bishop of Rome, whether he had an honorific primacy, etc. The question is whether that bishop has supremacy over all other bishops, is infallible, etc. No one with any sense or knowledge of history questions the former. Almost the entire Church of Christ outside of Rome rejects and has never accepted Rome's claims about the latter. Even Rome acknowledges this.
Part of the modern Roman apologist's tactic is to employ ambiguous, imprecise terms to confuse others into accepting their position. You all need to stop doing that. Indeed, the very need and compulsion to do so is evidence that the whole thing is a fabrication. So, if anything "discredits the papacy," it is really the behavior and tactics of contemporary apologists for Rome.
"If you could show me one contradiction."
Easy. Unam Sanctam clearly contradicts Vatican II regarding the necessity of submission to the Bishop of Rome as a condition of salvation. Clearly. Unequivocally. But the Roman apologists will wriggle out of this and the countless other contradictions by claiming "development of doctrine." In other words, we can explain away any contradiction using this magic wand.
There are no Catholics with enough integrity to admit what must be admitted. Rome has never been monolithic or wholly consistent. The decrees of the papacy and the councils have always been in conflict with other de fide teachings. There is no shame in that.
Unfortunately, one cannot admit error and remain Catholic. If the Holy Spirit is protecting the church from error, then being “under duress” as a defense is inadmissible. I really like Ybarra, but “mulligans” and infallibility do not mix. He should be proclaiming to us here which Protestant denomination he is converting to.
This is rich coming from the Orthodox who demure about that council that they claim were "forgeries," or that they were forced to sign it. Putting our feet in our mouth, are we?
10:04 Let's distinguish "infallibility" and "inerrancy".
The Bible is inerrant, but it could lead someone unwary astray, or rather allow someone to twist his understanding of it astray. It's basically for bishops or theologians rather than normal lay men. But the original and at least somewhere preserved version of the text cannot be factually wrong (either dogma or small fact).
The Church is infallible. It could be wrong (in much, but not all of Tradition, as in Fathers) on a fact, as long as the fact did not affect dogma.
Example : nearly all Fathers after St. Irenaeus (the exceptions being some of his contemporaries and only maybe a Gallican martyrology) identify the Beloved Disciple with one son of Zebedee, one of the twelve. As soon as he was an "apostle" in any sense, it still upholds revelation being completed before the death of the last apostle. If he was a Cohen and one of the 72, that's fine, even if most Church men since St. Irenaeus were factually wrong : _because_ they were not doctrinally wrong.
It's like Aristotle's strongest argument for earth being round is sound _as an argument_ even if wrong as a fact : Magellan providing what "Ganges = Gibraltar" lacked.
What matters is, a Gospel written AD 100 and a Revelation received AD 90 on Patmos were received and written with the competence of one who had known Jesus _and the Blessed Virgin_ - and this is correct even on the thesis of Fr. Jean Colson. So, the Church is infallible, but not factually inerrant. However, if _all_ Church fathers, including Papias and Asia Minor ones, remaining there (unlike St. Irenaeus, who left Asia Minor at 16), had said or shown agreement that the Beloved Disciple were the Son of Zebedee, then probably Church infallibility would have provided inerrancy on the case, even if the Church in principle does not have inerrancy.
But the Bible actually having inerrancy is part of Church teaching over the centuries, and "Deutero-Isaiah" and "Yahwist-Elohist +" is not. Unlike the Cohen John as one of 72, this is not compatible with the sources' claims about the authorships.
Matt you should check out the interesting story of Pope Stephen VI and the Cadaver Synod. It’s a WILD story
And it proves, sedevacantism can be true at times.
I think it was Stephen VI who claimed the see of Peter had been vacant in the day of Formosus.
Whether he was right or wrong on Formosus matters less than the fact that he held it compatible with his Catholic doctrine that the previous "apparent" Pope (apparent from facts like recognition, coronation etc, not on all counts) was in fact no Pope.
Confer some Vatican II:ers who _now_ compare Sedevacantism in all forms to heresy (I think I heard Fr Pine going on that theme).
@Thoska Brah Right now, I am technically speaking not Sedevacantist, but Conclavist. But this presupposes Sedevacantism being true back in the day when David Bawden was convoking an emergency conclave.
4:55 Is this why Pope St. Leo IX says that the decisions of the first see are "ex se irreformabiles, nisi quid supreptum sit"?
In the first decree Vigilius was dealing with something "subreptum" - a swapped letter.
When I read the title I thought it was about Pope Joan. Interesting story for those of you that study Catholic history.
fake
If Mr. Ybarra is looking for Papal pronouncements that potentially contradict Catholic teaching I wish he would grapple with this one sometime, for it is my favorite. The time when Julius II excommunicated ALL the citizens of Venice. What this meant, according to the laws of the day, was that any person who was a citizen of Venice could have been killed with no accrual of a sin or other penalty. This included innocent little children too, for everyone who was in Venice was excommunicated, and thus all could be killed with no consequences temporal or celestial. What this means is that the Church was effectively giving the OK to killing of innocents, and thus making it clear that under certain circumstances killing innocent people is just fine. And it is likely that some were killed, including children. Of course this hardly squares with the many statements that the Catholic Church has always been against such things, and always "Pro-Life". Nope. The history tells us differently. ---- Lastly I had to chuckle at the wink-wink feigned protestations by both fellows here that if they could not make the history coherent for themselves that then they might have to become atheists. That is not the way religious belief works, and certainly not for fellows like this. Pretty good acting though--- you get a celestial Oscar!
Excommunications are'nt infallible
That isn't what excommunication means.
I don’t think this is a knock down punch for EO. Not close even. Respectfully disagree with Eric and for the reasons he explains so I don’t know why he would say that.
Also 10:35 🤭
9:42 "two Isaiah, five writers of the Pentateuch" ...
According to modern (very flawed) scholarship.
On the topic of the Pentateuch, it holds up in Biblical history. Not identic, but akin to and included in dogma.
Canaveral Synod! Where the Cadaver of Pope Formosus was condemned.
It was only survive because of one reason, violence (Gen 49 : 5 - 7).
quite messy, from a practical and common sense point of view, vigilius was under duress, and the translation into latin provided to the pope was misunderstood. so for all intents and purposes, any pronouncements from the pope which is the fruit of duress from the emperor or pronouncements made from misrepresentation due to translation should be invalid, all of them, coming from vigilius. because valid rulings can only come from freely manifested pronouncements free from duress and free from misrepresentation or confusion. vigilius effectively made two invalid pronouncements, null and void, ab initio. no valid ruling came from vigilius effectively because of duress, misrepresentation and confusion, and that is why we have coptic Christianity. this would be a good subject for an ecumenical council to take up: invalidate the rulings of vigilius because of duress and misrepresentation/ambiguity/confusion from translation and his exoneration from the three chapters controversy; and hopefully a bull of union of the coptic church to the catholic profession of faith
Pope Virgilius be like: th-cam.com/video/Rm73FjzT7QA/w-d-xo.html
I though this was about Francis SHlTTlNG in the woods!
Is a bear Catholic?
He was just trying to imitate Adam
@@Jim-Mc More Catholic than Francisco the Mad that's for sure!
It is not an issue when you never placed any FAITH in a pope to begin with. The word of God comes from the Bible, not the pope.
yeah good luck interpreting it properly without the assistance of a magisterium that's been trained to understand and interpret it as accurately as possible
The canon of the Bible comes from the Pope.
Why is the NT 27 books, like a council of Rome said and not 26 as one of Laodicea said, mid 4th C?
Rome was, Laodicea wasn't the city of the Pope.
How do you know which books belong in the Bible?
Pope Francis is the Most understood Pope in the modern era because channels like yours push that narrative..pray for Francis
Count on a Catholic to discredit scriptural inerrancy while arguing for papal infallibility and supremacy. What a joke. Who do you worship? Christ or his disciples ?
Erick Ybarra is a Vatican II:er and therefore, while hoping to be a Catholic wrong about actually being one.
Real Catholics do not discredit or attack Biblical inerrancy. They claim it both for and through Papal infallibility.
@@hglundahl i mean a catholic by definition has to be accepting Vatican 2 or else he becomes a schismatic
@@mariorizkallah5383 Supposing the schism is not on the other side, like those accepting it are schismatics.
That would be the reasoning of Pope Michael.