What Eastern Orthodox Apologists Miss About the Papacy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Ben Bollinger, a convert to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy, has written an excellent piece on the historical case for the Papacy in the Church Fathers and Councils of the First Millennium. Please access that article here at Ben's substack
benjaminjohn.s...
Ben Bollinger's Testimony on the Catholic Brothers
• Orthodox Christian Blo...
I became Orthodox 22 years ago from a Pentecostal background. For many reasons, I'm seriously considering Catholicism and I'm attending a Catholic parish and my Orthodox parish every other Sunday. It's apparent to me that, just as Christianity stands or falls on the fact of Jesus' resurrection, Catholicism stands or falls on the Papacy being divinely instituted. I've only listened to the first 25 minutes and ordered "My Broken Body" based on your recommendation. I'm also reading Ericks 700-page book on the Papacy along with Steve Rays book "Upon This Rock". I'm dedicating 2025 to this discernment process. All help is greatly appreciated !
Thanks for your comment. I pray God gives you the gift of discernment.
Wow. This level of humility and candor is rare and refreshing. God be with you. ##ByzantineCatholic
I’m about halfway through Ybarra’s book. It’s a long haul, but worth it. May I also humbly suggest the following books in your discernment? : Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) and The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Olivier Clément, You Are Peter, Robert Spencer, The Church and the Pope, Michael Whelton, Two Paths, Edith M. Humphrey, Grand Entrance. Peace.
@@ellenlatanzi5536 Please consider checking out Keys Over the Christian World in Internet Archive, which has the most detailed account about the ancient papacy from day one.
I spent 2023 as someone who still wasn’t baptized discerning between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the holy rosary was instrumental for ultimately leading me to Catholicism, I got baptized 9 months after I had started praying it. May God bless you and may Our Mother keep you and guide you to her Son!
The “occasion of schism” section really blew my mind . It’s only in the Catholic Church where the moral duty for unity is enforced at all levels because in every schism that may occur there is one who is being schismatic. Great work gentlemen
Oriental but SERIOUSLY discerning Catholicism. Love your videos!
Check out The Zealots Den! Vive Cristo Rey!
@@michaelmarcus509 do you think you worship the same god as Muslims?
Great work. Thank you very much. I am a young catholic from Germany and spend some time discerning Orthodoxy and you were a significant help to keep me in the bosom of the church. May God gift us complete trust in his church and preserve us in her. Glory to the Lord for the work he does through you
Thank you for helping me revert to Catholicism ✝️❤️🔥
The "chiefship" of St Peter in Latin is principatus, a term meaning sovereignty. Pope Adrian I claimed it five times, writing to the seventh ecumenical council. The Fr Price version of Nicea II waters the term down by rendering it "primacy" or "primatial authority" four times. It appears in papal letters in the fifth century, e.g. St Boniface I, letters 10 and 14, with the clear meaning of sovereignty or supremacy. Great job gentlemen, and I love the texts from Theodore Abuqurra, which should be better known.
Thank you sir. I've been reading through your book and it is a great resource. I need to save for a hardcopy
Thankyou Eric and Ben for bringing us this fantastic presentation, this is one to save in my favourite list and im sure i'll return to this multiple times. Im going to check out Bens substack article next , thanks guys and God bless.
Erick you guys are doing incredible work. My wife thinks I’m going nuts reading and listening to all these videos. Ever since I signed up for academia to read your articles, I’ve been getting suggestions in my email on the papacy question. I’m currently reading PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM And the Result of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue by George Thekkekara. It seems to be written form an Orthodox perspective so far…
This is the best I’ve seen yet on this issue. Thank you guys!
Thank you for your work Erick.
Hey Erick I appreciate all of the hours of work You have put into this research. It has helped me a lot as I wrestle with wanting to be orthodox. On a personal level it is not that I can’t see the argument for the Vatican 1 papacy or on a practical level that it makes sense for an institution to have a head. The most difficult thing for me is the real world experience. I think I could spend 100 years and still not sift through all the historical data and line up catholic vs orthodox claims. My main issue is everyday practice. Just at face value with things like facing east infant communion and other common apostolic practices that don’t exist in the vast majority of the Catholic Church. Why would I want to trade my son receiving Christ himself in the Eucharist from as early as possible for a technically right ecclesiology that seems to be doing more harm than good, at least recently.
God bless you guys!
Excellent video, thank you so much for your work!
2:13:14 This was amazing.
I think that comment at the end about how even with a clear historical example of an "ex cathedra" papal "Imperial command", if the Church universally complied then the interlocutor WOULD obviously make a case about Pentarchy ratification, or Conciliarism, or Charasmatic movement of the Spirit in the laity, or even that the command was really just biblical and compatible with sola scriptura.
In my opinion this is kind of how I see the Tome of Leo itself in relation to Chalcedon, but as you said, the historical commentary on that is a "black hole". 2:13:14
Thanks for the Lion's Den shout out Erick! BTW, did you ever get the chance to read that John IV of Jerusalem letter supporting papal infallibility? It's pretty strong to use in unison with Theodore Abu Qura arguing the epistemology of the papacy, since John IV argued that centuries prior with regard to Chalcedon.
Not yet, did you send it to me on messenger?
@@Erick_Ybarra sorry I hadn't sent it for some reason, but I just sent it so you should be able to open it.
@@dioscoroswhich letter?
@@Sicilianuss Letter of John IV of Jerusalem to Abas of Caucasian Albania.
Erick, my wife got me your book on The Papacy for Christmas and I have to say it is amazing. Normally I can get lost in the names and all the “isms” that have materialized over the millennia, but remarkably I have no problem reading and understanding your text. It is a great read.
I’m only up to chap12 so I don’t know if you cover it but do the Orthodox have a response as to the dwindling of importance or stature of the Sees of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and even Jerusalem. These Sees are being lessened by the Muslims over the centuries especially Constantinople being so controlled by Turkish policy, but yet Rome still stands strong. Even though Rome has been hit by all sorts of trouble throughout the years, it still stands intact worldwide. The Gates of Hell have not prevailed and Mother Church remains offensive in this regard. Do Orthodox Christians even think of the status of their Eastern Churches are jeopardized/controlled by Islam? What can they say then about the Apostolic See of Rome? If they remained strong with Rome would they be having these difficulties maintaining status in predominantly Muslim countries today? There are so many questions on this topic but your book and this discussion is making me wonder.
Thank you again for all you guys do!!! Christ be praised!!!
Thanks much for this video.
Thank you Erick Ybarra for teaching us about the Papacy! I wish I had a teacher who could teach me everything about this topic, since I find it highly interesting and came to the RCC last year. I want to learn as much as possible about this topic since I believe if you can prove this, then you prove the RCC is the only true church.
Do you have a place where I can read and study all of the material you've studied, so I can study that material as well? I want to help save my future wife and wife's family by bringing them from the OO to the RC church.
God bless you brother for teaching us! Keep it going I'm trying to make as many notes as possible meanwhile.
2025 Jubilee year is a wonderful time for reconciliation! May we pray earnestly for friends and family to come home!
Wonderful video! Thank you for putting in all the work to bring us this content. Can you tell me the name of music you used at the end of the video?
"O Sons and Daughters" The Cathedral singers & Richard Proulx
Eric also, the point you made about the bishop of Nafpaktos (Ietotheos Vlachos) is spot on. In his book on the Holy Synod of Crete in 2016 he states that now that the Council finished it's work it will be judged by history. He goes on to say that history will give the Synod its proper name as past Councils that were initially considered Ecumenical were rejected whilst merely local Councils have the aura of Ecumenical Councils. This is because it depends whether these decisions are accepted by the pleroma of the Church, meaning those that constitute the body of Christ as they are the vigilant Christ bearers.
In short, people's reaction to Council decisions is part of the "dialect" as to whether it is valid or not. It is part of the equation of determining its authenticity. Hence, quite different from notions of "submission of will" etc...... Your reaction against a Council serves to test its validity.
For me even without deep diving into details of history its obvious what Church with God providence spread throughout the world in 2000 years time. 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation...
So whatever church is biggest is true?
@@joshf2218 History is providential. The “argument” clearly has force. Most assume RC is just another denomination among many until they realize no other group rivals the Catholic Church - the mainstream body of Christendom. Peter/Rome. We have these visible “marks”. not just “size”.
@@Rome_77 History is also in flux and changes.
Judah was smaller than Ephraim. At the time of the schism and for some time after East was bigger than the West. The RCC has those numbers because of colonialism and syncretism in the South Americas primarily. The piety of Europe, its birthplace died and it outsourced it to the third world without properly catechizing it. Look at Brazil and Mexico.
If Islam or Protestantism overtakes the RCC you won’t use this argument, so it’s a bad argument. Maybe it’s the best one you have - but it’s bad.
@@joshf2218 Joseph and his brothers. Judah and the other tribes of Israel. The Latin Church and the Eastern Churches.
Again, I’m not arguing “size = true”. We have literal Rome and the literal successor to Peter. You guys spiritualize both of these marks. But these are visible marks of the Church Militant / Christendom. The rejection of Peter and Rome is the rejection of Christendom. It’s the over-spiritualization of the Church - decentered untethered from Rome.
@@joshf2218 I think the argument is that the Eastern Church, at least historically really hasn't evangelized in centuries. Even if you want to argue that Catholic evangelization was done by colonialism and syncretism (Which I personally don't think is entirely true), the Church has been doing missionary work all over Asia for millennia dating well before the colonial era. We have saints such as St Francis Xavier who was notable for evangelizing all throughout Asia without a sword or gunpowder.
I can't honestly tell you however, the missionary work of the Orthodox Church. It exists most certainly, but at best it's inconsistent, and at worst, it's done very lackadaisically. Even today, the majority of Orthodox converts aren't from evangelization, it's from repulsion from a prior faith (Catholics included). The Orthodox Church historically and now seems to be very exclusive, at least in Europe.
Peter means Rock ❤
I could not join the live chat. Do you have to be a Patreon?
No that’s strange
Looking for some dialogue on how to overcome the nightmare of V2 and Novus Ordo praxis.
@@mythologicalmyth Ha! There is very little with which to do that
@@Erick_Ybarra interesting answer.
@@mythologicalmyth Nightmare of V2? I recommend reading the two dogmatic constitutions from the Second Vatican Council:
1. Lumen Gentium (On the Church)
vatican va /archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
2. Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation)
vatican va /archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
There is a mutual submission between husband and wife but it's only in two senses.
One: the body which we give ownership of to our spouse until death does us part.
Two: husbands must work for the sake of their wives and wives obey their husbands for the sake of their families.
When neither prefers anything to Christ, harmony will exist.
54:13 I just got past the Liberius and Vigilius comment. Wouldn’t this suppose that St. Maximos the Confessor was a popesplainer? lol, not in the sense of today but that he doubled down on allegiance to Rome? Please explain if otherwise.
We do NOT miss him at all... He is arch-heretic in need of repentance and return to the faith Rome held in first 1000 years. Simple.
So basically the argument seems to be: the Pope is infallible because the Pope says the Pope is infallible. A tidy circle. I would humbly suggest reading Met. John Zizioulas’ book, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: the Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishops During the First Three Centuries.
thats not the argument
I’m on this discernment process between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and I think that video may be missing something. Ben used the the family example to highlight the papacy because the father is the head of household. I have actually also heard Craig trulia use this example to show how the Pope navigated as the head of the church in the first Millenium. What he said was that in the same way a family is still a family of the Dad chooses to leave, so is the church still the church if the head of the church chooses to schism from the rest. The Bible recognizes the authority of a father but at the same time God does not expect you to follow a heretical father to hell. All of the top orthodox apologists acknowledge that the pope was the head of the church with universal jurisdiction and that it was instituted by Christ but that those prerogatives are as mediated by conciliar agreement. This video puts a huge emphasis on the promise of Jesus but Jesus also promises that he won’t lose any of his sheep but Catholics believes that you can lose your salvation. In the same way Jesus can promise papal prerogatives to Rome as long as it remains orthodox. What are y’all’s thoughts?
The New testament is not the old. In the New, the father of the Church cannot leave because Christ instituted something permanent and monarchical, just like Moses were the Head of the people of Israel. The Church was made indefectible always WITH Peter, not without. And the notion of Head doesn’t work in E.Orthodoxy because they butcher that meaning which disproves them. A Head/Father has unilateral power, he doesn’t have to ask permission for his decisions. Scripture, Reason and the Church Fathers + Councils, all refute Eastern ”Orthodoxy” since they teach Roman Indefectibility and Universal Immediate Jurisdiction. The Pope is the Head of the whole Church, not only of a mediate Supreme Court.
The father analogy is just that, an analogy. In both the article and video, I give independent reasons why the specific way in which the fathers conceive of Petrine headship would entail infallibility and indefectibility for the Roman See. As for Jesus' promise that He wouldn't lose any of His sheep, this is true. None of the Lord's chosen elect are damned. "Losing salvation" simply means someone in a state of grace can fall from that state, it doesn't mean that one of the elect, chosen from before the foundation of the world, won't infallibly be saved. Trent only taught that we cannot infallibly *know* if you are elect. So, no, Jesus' promises don't fail, and if your best argument against the papacy is that maybe Jesus' promises sometimes do fail, then I'd recommend re-thinking your approach.
Orthodox also believe you can lose salvation. They celebrate all the same sacraments as Catholics, including confession, which is only a necessary sacrament to celebrate if you can lose your salvation.
“(…) to promise papal prerogatives as long as he remains orthodox”. For me that doesn’t make much sense, but it is an EO ‘post hoc’ to support - or, better than that, to strangely accommodate to - their (schismatic) “ethos” and faulty ecclesiology.
First they come with the theory that the primacy refers to the political capital of the Roman Empire, therefore it can be “moved”. Then they say the primacy is ‘honorific-only’, a mere symbol of unity, being the successor of Peter only ‘first among equals’, as Peter was allegedly a mere ‘first’ among the apostles, with no distinctive function or role among the brother apostles whatsoever, having received just a prestigious order (whatever that happens to mean). But when pressed by the huge evidence of the Fathers and specially the Ecumenical Councils, they - just THEN - say the promises of Jesus to Peter are founded in the Gospel, but they are somehow conditional to the Petrine postures. That’s Craig Truglia’s claim - the way I humbly see it - and it serves to deceive Protestants who consider Catholicism, betting on the more traumatic news of Pope Francis’ pontificate and the effect it might have. It sounds manipulative - and it is indeed. I say it as respectfully as I can, my friend.
Honestly, the urge to reject Catholicism is an ideological impulse that makes you fall for so much nonsense, my friend. They count on anti-Catholicism in all Anglophone Internet. But do you REALLY think Our Lord’s promises to Peter were conditioned? Have you actually read the Gospels? Do you think God’s promises to Israel were conditional and dependable upon how the Jews behaved? Or were they unconditional and irrevocable, as St Paul says about the promises to Israel with all clarity and force of words (Romans 11, 29)?
Let me ask a very direct question: and WHO judges if the Successor of Peter is orthodox? For two occasions (Second Lyon and Florence) the Greek Patriarchs were in arrangements for reuniting with the Bishop of Rome; in Florence the agreement was even settled and just then they refused to enforce what they already signed on the theory of “reception”. Do you know how one can see a new problem emerging? By understanding their “post hoc” rejection of an Ecumenical Council while at the same time they create a novel theory on how to recognize and to refuse ecumenicity. Orthodoxy is without an Ecumenical Council (according to the majority of EO theologians at the very least) for more than a thousand years, and notice even that fact is disputed. I’m alluding to the absolute lack of (definitive, I mean) criteria to really recognize what a Council is in the first place (in opposition to a synodal gathering), when a Council is really Ecumenical (in opposition to a local or regional one), when it happens to be dogmatic, when or how it achieves infallibility. It is not a minor thing, especially if you advocate for the universality and unitive factor of the Church residing in the exact conditions predicated on those councils. If the whole UNIVERSAL teaching authority is centered in the figure of Ecumenical Councils, the very least it could provide is to explain what they are and how to know one of them. Apart from any kind or arguments that are circular, EO doesn’t provide much. And they still have not much despite using the “when the Orthodox Church(es) says so” clause. With that being said, what Ecumenical Council have condemned Rome, but the exact opposite (condemning those who condemned Rome)?
Please notice: at Florence’s time there wasn’t a Patriarchate for Russia in Moscow, therefore the “Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus’”, Isidore of Kyiv, responded as the ecclesiastical authority of the Rus’ (under Greek cultural influence but not under Byzantine political subjugation). And he too had signed the agreement for reunion. Clearly surpassing the Greek patriarchates and the Byzantine world in schism, it seems suspiciously convenient to argue for the “pressures” and “necessities” of the Byzantine Empire being the reason for a supposed insincere agreement on their part, because obviously the Rus’ was never a piece of the Byzantine Empire (as understandable, Truglia and other EO apologists say that the EO legation only agreed with reuniting because the Byzantines needed military support from the West to fight against the Turks, so they were “insincere” and moved by the urge and needs). Besides, when the Decree of Reunion was already celebrated and sent to be applied, Mark of Ephesus (alone as an important episcopal authority) and the Duchy of Moscow acted as the pivotal players to refuse the agreement’s application (to be fair, Mark of Ephesus was against reunion and that very Ecumenical Council ‘per se’). After the unpopularity display all around the Greek world and the unceasing hatred for Latins guiding their desire against reunion, they argued for a sort of incompatibility with the Greek ‘phronema’ (in Latin we would call that word ‘sensus fidelium’ - or the senses/mind of the faithful) as means to justify the outcome. Doctrinally, it presented to the world the EO’s “theory of reception”, according to which a synod or a Council could attend canonical conditions to enforce its authority but, if it gets refused by the faithful as explained by some saints, it won’t have any. Politically, it lead to the long schism between Constantinople and the Moscowite part of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv and All Rus’ (1467-1560) that - finally - lead to the CREATION of the new (conventional) Patriarchate of Moscow in 1560 to end the conflagration (when, curiously enough, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople granted Moscow autocephaly). Just read anything you can about the 15-16th century Moscow-Constantinople schism, brother, and how it started on its origins with Moscow-Kyiv fighting on different sides over the theme of Catholic reunion and how it paved the way for Russian Imperialism over Ukraine.
The roots for the Annexation of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the newly born Moscow Patriarchate (process that happened in the period of 1685-1722) were drawn. It was all consumated when Czar Peter the Great finally submitted Ukraine to Moscow in the 1700s. You simply know ‘Orthobros’ will say the current schism between Moscow and Constantinople (about the latter granting autocephalous status to Ukraine, a “canonical crime” according to Moscow, a thing that happened to them in the 1500s) is a minor thing, without correlating it to Florence, for instance. They will downplay it as a “provisory political turbulence”, not a thing related to their faulty ecclesiology, like they will do with anything that hurts them, and maximize every papal polemics conceivable to deceive your judgments and make you miss the substantial - and undeniable- realities of papal ecclesiology. Bet on that.
From 🇧🇷 Brazil with love.
Brother, in matters of the respective ecclesiologies, if we go down the Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogues (and from them one could add Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East and even Anglicans to an extent) in honesty and good faith from this point of history, we must urgently avoid to represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”: an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or the audacity of his mind. To all extents, even prior to Vatican I (we are talking about more than 800 years, if the historical demarcation points to 1054), the large majority of churches of Greek-Byzantine influence were objectively in state of reciprocal schism with the Catholic Church, so nothing in the matters of schism and division could indeed be attributable - at least in some sort of honest and not on “post hoc” argumentation - to First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees ‘per se’ (taking into consideration, for example, the stabilization of the ones in 431, 451 and 1054 as conventional data). All schisms (please notice: ALL of them) in history don’t relate to refusing papal authority primarily, yet all schismatic processes or doctrinal struggles threatening huge divisions were solved by some monstrance of papal authority, like Ephesus, Chalcedon, the Hormisdas Libel, 3rd Constantinople and 2nd Nicea, for example. It’s quite inevitable. If one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and using the honest vantage point of dialoguing, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, Vatican I’s concepts illuminated by that functionality. I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I when they discuss it online and portray the Pope more or less as a tyrant. The concepts are nothing alike:
*1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to mere practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, let alone by the Empire, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution and not by a democratic principle. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” -, mediatory participation is in general preferable).
*2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of some). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate (not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation), from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). There resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; and also a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter - in this specific sense - and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church.
*3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Som may conflate ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome.
I always post this just to help people who are discerning these things, so that they are not wronged by gross satires. God bless!
I have a sincere , genuine question for cradle Orthodox, not newbie Protestant converts to EO:
Is it true that as married priests in the EO, you have to abstain from conjugal relations before celebrating Mass? And if so, how long before (a full 24 hrs, before midnight, a few hours?). And as a man-priest and woman in a sacramental marriage, then it can be anything goes conjugal relations?
And do EO priests do DAILY Masses? And how many EO priests in a typical EO church? It is not like EO priests are a dime a dozen.
What is the UNIFIED , UNIVERSAL EO morality on ABORTION, Birth control, RAINBOW 6 colors (the non covenant type) that also applies and is binding on EO priests? And it holds true and is EXACTLY the same for married priests and married laity? And is this EXACTLY the same for “old World” EO and American EO, or has it been loosened to accommodate especially for American-culture/Protestant-convert sexual mores? Sexual morality/regulations of CATHOLICISM is a stumbling block for many Protestants, who like to maintain/indulge in their Protestant “intimacy proclivities.”
Thank you in advance for your education/reply.
And the same question for any true, traditional, nonrainbow Anglican that happens to read this: same question about Anglican priests.
You may want to ask the eastern catholic priests the same questions. 😅
This is the problem with the catholics, they don't know their own religion or many sub sects and beliefs.
Eastern catholics like melkites hold to almost identical positions and dogmas on 99% of things as the orthodox including divorce, infant communion, married priests etc.
And no they don't necessarily serve daily masses, and yes they do abstain as we all do, even lay people abstain from conjugal relationships before the eucharist (or at least theyre supposed to if theyre under a good spiritual father). As well as a 12 hour fast from water and food for both.
Something the west lost among the myriads of things it lost.
As far as your other questions, the orthodox church is categorically against abortion, contraception, lgbt and you'd have to be living under a rock to think that the roman church is in ANY better position when your own pope is allowing the blessing of SS couples (no, don't try to popesplain, try to do actual research and maybe even listen to Tim Gordon on this, a catholic.)
We have the same morality in every jurisdiction. The same dogmas, the same liturgy. It is quite amazing.
Whereas under the papacy, we have the protestant abomination called novus ordo with women giving the eucharist, we have the TLM which ur pope is trying to ban, we have the sspx, we have the eastern catholics that don't have the same liturgical calendar nor practices (they still commune at baptism).
The orthodox church IS the one true church. No doubt about that.
It is certainly not the church who's clergy are, according to latest says, 70% gay.
@ Thank you for your answer to some question. I am so happy to hear true EO are universally against abortion, contraception, 6-Colored rainbow networks. May Mary in Her Immaculate Conception bless you with all the graces you can handle. You are 1000% correct. I have been living under St Peter’s rock my whole life- have you heard of it ? You may not think much of it, and that’s okay. I am so thankful for this Jubilee Year that the seat of St Peter has the authority to announce and dispense w blessing.
So you still have not answered the question: Do married Ortho priests have to abstain from intimacy proclivities before Mass, and if so, how long before? And if they do, why? And do married priests do DAILY MASS? This is not a secret hidden by the clergy for the clergy , right? All Orthodox believers do know this - either as yes or no, and why. - right? I am trying to understand. .
It is an interesting phenomenon. I am also trying to ask it of nonrainbow married Anglican priests.
@ May Mary assumed to Heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth bless you with all the graces you deserve . So Protestants who can’t accept Mary’s role (Gen 3:15) or even the presence of Mary find the Orthodox Marian belief easier to accept in their conversion to Orthodox? Could you also explain that phenomenon to me?
And is American “PROTESTANTIZED and modernized” Orthodoxy one and the same as the “true and original” EO in Europe unchanged and preserved since the 1100s, or different under the “same name”? “Orthobros” and “Kyle” and many Protestant converts like them sound more Protestant and juvenile under the dressing of Ortho than real Ortho? Or do you see them as ALSO true, real orthodox Ortho?
@ANg-1298 I did answer your question. Read my answer :) Orthodox usually do not do daily masses. We do liturgies on Sundays, and on feast days, and pre sanctified liturgy during lent.
I suggest you go to an orthodox parish and ask all your questions. :)
The Vatican's 2016 Chieti document. The last line of Paragraph 19 admits the following, "But the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."
The document is ridiculously bad, but the affirmation is kind of obvious in this particular part. Some EO apologists are simply messing up with trivial concepts to back up their (anti-Catholic) agenda - like Jay Dyer, for instance - and some neophytes are falling for this kind of discourse. That can sound quite desperate to my taste. So listen to me, my dear friend: up to this day the Church of Rome doesn’t _”exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”_ Simple as that. That’s why the Eastern Catholic churches are called “sui iuris” or, as literally extracted from the Greek, autonomous (“auto”= “sui” + “nomos”= “iuris”) churches. That means they follow their “own law” or, in other words, they are self regulated. As a matter of fact, they don’t follow the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (actualized in 1983), which textually says it is applicable to the Latin Church only, but their very own canons, in accordance with the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO; ‘Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium’). The Church of Rome did not exercise canonical enforcement over the East, nor does it do now, like disciplines concerning priestly celibacy and the discretion to alter rubrics of liturgical rites, for example. You absolutely misunderstand what both canonical authority, on one hand, and jurisdiction (“iuris” + “dicere”: that means to say/ teach the norms/ rules of faith), on the other hand, mean. God bless!
More so, there is something very funny here. ‘Orthobros’ spend night and day on the Internet parroting that “ecumenism is a modernist cancer” but are somehow desperately using documents produced by ecumenical administrative organs of the Roman curia (like commissions of theologians nominated by the Dicastery to Promote Christian Unity, for example) - with zero magisterial authority whatsoever - as a supposed “admission” of something, oddly enough.
that’s not a binding document
@@jacobrox1632 Correct. Commissions of theologians don’t have magisterial authority, therefore they don’t have the power to bind and loose. One example is the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine Justification”, a historic agreement signed by Lutherans and Catholics on 31 October 1999 in Augsburg (Germany). But at least Lutherans are not ridiculously saying that is an “admission” of whatever kind of theological disputes; they simply know it doesn’t have any magisterial weight. That’s not to say they are irrelevant: documents to promote Christian unity are meant to push further the “state of art” in the ecumenical dialogue, like monstrances of good will towards the others.
@@jacobrox1632classic Catholic cope every time 😂
Check out The Zealots Den for good fellowship ⚔️🕊️
Debate Fr. Joseph Suaidan or Craig Truglia on the papacy.
there are videos of this online
“Submit to the pope!”
The pope: “Proselytizing the Orthodox is a grave sin”
They pick and choose when to submit to him lol
What Church are you part of?
lol
Im really curious whats its going to look like when a Bishop of Rome eventual repents for all the horros of western theology and rejoin the Church as the first among equals. And how are grifters going to handle it?
I'm really curious how this little fanfiction you wrote has anything to do with the arguments presented.
@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls because heresy always eventually gets repented for. Eventually there won't be enough mason money in the west to influence the corruption and a Bishop of Rome will realize there was such thing as papacy or magesteriun at Nicea, or Chalcedon, or Trullo, and it will be accepted that Peter did not have supreme authority over Andrew or Paul or John. Common sense.
show me were it says in the bible that first among equals is true
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u the Bible isn't a step by step basis on how to worship. Prophets and Apostles first set up chuches and oversaw them, then they wrote down parts of those revelations.
But since when do you care about the Bible? The Bible says The Eucharist is the true Blood and Body of Christ and that we should consume it in worship. You don't believe that.
"And it seemed good to us and the holy spirit."... St peter was there at the Council of Jerusalem but st James presided. Is that enough of an example?
So is the position of Erick Ybarra and Ben Bollinger and the RC apologists in general that the Pope of Rome can never err theologically, that it is impossible for the Pope of Rome to teach heresy? And if the Pope of Rome seems to do or say something that is false, not in keeping with the apostolic faith, unorthodox and heretical then it must not actually be those things simply because the Roman pontiff did or said it and the Roman pontiff is incapable of sin, unable to present a false, heretical teaching? Once a man becomes the Pope of Rome, from that day forward he has no free will by which he might err like every other human being may err? He is a different species of humanity, one incapable of making a theological mistake, by virtue of the fact that he is the Pope of Rome? The logical syllogism would thus be: (1) The Pope of Rome can never sin or make a theological error. (2) All the other apostolic Patriarchs believe that what the Pope of Rome said/did is in error. (3) The Pope of Rome is right and the other apostolic Patriarchs are wrong because (1) The Pope of Rome can never sin or make a theological error. Is that what you all believe? Please clarify. If that is what you believe, I do see the intellectual satisfaction you get from holding tightly (desperately, it seems) to such a neat and tidy, airtight logical system. That could be very satisfying also in a psychological sense, especially for those who really like to think in black & white terms. It may also provide people with a (false) sense of "spiritual" security and certainty as well, and be a real identity booster, akin to the "I'm saved b/c I said certain words about accepting JC as my personal Lord and Savior....and because I said those words it matters not what I do after that...I'm going straight to heaven because I said the magic words." The West/Left brain loves certainty, logic, and a sense of control. It's magical. But...what if THE PREMISE (that the Pope cannot err) IS WRONG? What if he not only can err, but actually did err...which led to the Great Schism? I get that that is impossible in your minds. As you all know, the other apostolic Patriarchs concluded that is what actually happened. The Pope made a boo boo, and the Christian world was torn asunder and has been so ever since. Consequently, none of your patristic quotes including the one from St. Pope Boniface 1 from the 4th-5th c. apply. They are out of context of the situation we've been in since the Great Schism in the 11th c.
You seem very deeply attached to the idea that the Pope is the Head of the Church because he's the successor of Peter, etc. Did you forget that Peter denied our Lord three times? Was that infallible of him?
The Orthodox Church, apparently in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, teaches that CHRIST ALONE IS THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH. This strong emotional need on the part of RC apologists for a substitute head, other than Christ the Lord, reminds me of ancient Israel's yearning for a human King, instead of embracing God as it's King.
The Orthodox Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, as our Lord taught: "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." (Jn 16:13). You can dismiss that as being "charismatic" if you want, or "lacking a unified canonical THEORY" or "not grounded in principled ecclesiology"....but such is life....and life in the Holy Spirit. But it seems you would rather have a neat, tidy, logical, airtight man-made "theory" and "structure"....that gives you a sense of certainty and infallibility. (This reminds me of the RC "theory" that a marriage, even after 20 years and 5 kids, can be "annulled" and called "not a marriage ever" because "we don't tolerate divorce." Yah, that's not reality. And it's not faith. The Orthodox are preserving the true apostolic faith.
Hi eyesee9715!
I will not be able to address everything due to a lack of time. However, I do disagree with many of the issues that you bring up. I can only hope that you dive in and find answers from knowledgeable Catholics in your life to these objections. God bless
@@Erick_Ybarra Any knowledgeable Catholics out there who have the time to address my questions?
@@eyesee9715 Your statements are extremely condescending and hostile. Please approach any debate in good faith, charity, and humility, especially with the perspective that you may be wrong and will always have something to learn. Nobody is arguing that the Pope as a person is free from sin and cannot make a theological error. These arguments supporting the Papacy are for the teaching office / seat of authority. Please consult other sources and establish a baseline understanding of what the Catholic understanding of the Papacy is before tackling a video covering an advanced issue that presupposes said knowledge. May God bless you in your pursuit of the truth and may you grow in virtue!
What Catholics get wrong about Christianity. Is we don’t worship Allah. Allah of the Quran is a completely different god. Your chruch teaches you worship Allah of the Quran. Your chruch teaches Allah is the creator of heaven and earth. That is apostasy. You confess another god Catholics. Well done.
I’m pretty sure Catholicism affirms that they worship the God of Abraham (the father), although they have an incomplete view because they don’t accept the other 2 persons of the Trinity. It’s not like the church would ever say that a Muslim is in Heaven.
@ before I accuse you of being dishonest and illogical are you actually familiar with Islam? And have you actually read Vatican 2?
@ do you know in Islam Allah said he is not a father and has no son? And Allah isn’t YHWH. In Islam calling Allah a father or saying he has a son is called shirk. Which is the worst sin possible in Islam. So the god Muslims worship is not a father is not a son and is not the Holy Spirit. So do you worship the god they worship yes or no?
@ so Muslims deny the father. Muslims deny the son. Muslims deny the Holy Spirit. And the god of the Muslims teach Jesus never died. So do you worship that god yes or no?
@@kennynoNope I’m familiar with what the Catechism says about it, but not Vatican 2 however. Now I’m not the most knowledgeable about it, so I’m going to say that I could have some misunderstanding, but when the Catechism says they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and worship the same God, I assumed it meant that 1. They profess to believe in the God of the OT Jews and 2. Even thought they may have a CRITICAL misunderstanding of who God is, they still adore the person of father (although I’m aware they acknowledge he isn’t a father to anyone). But in that case I would assume Rabbinic Jews think the same thing, and imo I’d say they worship the same God the Father, but they’re missing the other 2 persons of the One, true, triune God, and therefore have a deadly misunderstanding of who he is.