When Popes Fail - Erick Ybarra

00:00:00 - Introduction
00:01:25 - Erick's Course: erickybarra.com/courses
00:03:21 - Presentation Begins
00:03:41 - Liberius
00:10:14 - Vigilius
00:42:54 - Honorius
00:55:13 - Q&A
Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.

[@jabelltulsa]

This is all so over my head, but listening to Eric talk about it makes it so easy to understand.

[@Spsz6000]

Thank you guys for posting. I will definitely be rewatching.

[@csaszar07]

Great discussion! I appreciate the carefulness of your approach, Erik. One potential objection to your point, Suan, about Peter misunderstanding a direct revelation from Christ in Matt 16 would be the fact, as I understand it, that Peter was not Pope yet. Vatican 1, Session 4, Ch 1 seems to indicate that the promise of the papacy was conferred on Peter after the Resurrection. If this is the case, then the protections given to the Papacy may not have been activated yet.

[@bersules8]

1:01:08 the measuring stick is the most apt analogy I have ever heard on infallibility. Thank you Suan for providing that.
In other words, the church is always right when she holds up the faith adn says this is the faith of the apostles. It isn't guaranteed that she will always be accurate when describing something else in relation to the faith of the apostles.

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

Good stuff guys. How do we reconcile pope Leo II saying the apostolic see was stained, and the councils saying honorius was a heretic; when other popes, knowing about honorius, said the apostolic see remained unsullied, and they said this before councils, which accepted this claim? Thanks!

[@josephjude1290]

This is great information

[@consecratedsoul]

''The fact that Councils and later Popes themselves have denounced him (Pope Honorius) as a heretic is also crucial, for to deny that he was a heretic is thereby to challenge the judgment of these councils and popes. To show that Honorius did not err, but at the cost of showing that these later popes and (papally approved) councils did err, would be a Pyrrhic victory.''
-Dr Edward Feser on 'The error and condemnation of Pope Honorius'

[@consecratedsoul]

Source: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-error-and-condemnation-of-pope.html

[@Erick_Ybarra]

But both Honorius and the Councils could err. So showing one erred or the other really isn't that much of a diff to me.

[@Gruenders]

I like Feser but do feel like he’s not actually logically coherent on this matter.

[@Louis.R]

It's fascinating to think that the events surrounding the christological disputes between Honorius, Heraclius and Sergius, would also contribute to the origin and rise of Islam.

[@alexpanagiotis4706]

Pope Formosus was digged out of his grave and condemned on the cadaver Synod

[@William_Farmer]

Is there a list of papal pronouncements which are infallible? How is it determined which papal teachings are infallible and which are not?

[@William_Farmer]

You mention multiple ecumenical councils condemning Pope Honorius, but the Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII states that a pope can be judged by no one. Presumably this would include a council, would it not? How then can a council condemn Pope Honorius, of any other pope?

[@comradelightswitch8814]

I'm not Catholic but I think the Catholic response would be a council can judge a past Pope with the current popes's permission as Pope Hadrian said

[@jordand5732]

If councils and popes can err, but scripture cannot err, does that mean scripture should be weighted heavier/be considered more authoritative than tradition?

[@namapalsu2364]

Council and pope can not err too, under paerticular conditions.
And scripture can err too... since what we have now is based on manuscripts that are not penned by the original writers. So there are copyist errors.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@holdfast5332 The infallible word of God is the original scripture. The scripture today has errors. Insignificant as they may be, it's enough to refute the assertion that scripture can not err.
And how do you know no copyist errors put any doctrine in doubt? From fallible scholars?

[@namapalsu2364]

@@holdfast5332 "Insignificant as they may be, it's enough to refute the assertion that scripture can not err."

[@namapalsu2364]

@@holdfast5332 Oh, it's there "error" in e general term and "error" in terms of theology?
What nonsense.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@holdfast5332 Error is error. You know nothing. If you want to begone, then begone.
Error in theology LOL.

[@richardeves9059]

I don't think that the Second Confession of Sirmium can be described as "ambiguous at worst". It is explicity subordinationist, and is commonly known as "The Blasphemy of Sirmium". This really was the high water mark of Arianism - if it isn't arian, nothing is. So while Liberius might not have been personally Arian, and might have also taught nicene orthodoxy, he did sign an explicitly arian creed.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Hi Richard!
I'll quote to you from the section of my book on the matter.
"After a couple years in exile (357), Liberius succumbed to agreeing with the imperial forces and gave way to St. Athanasius's condemnation. In addition, he signed an ambiguous creed as to the Son's relationship with the Father and certainly omitted any reference to their being of the 'same substance'. This statement 'while not expressly denying the formula of Nicaea, deviated from and practically abandoned it.' It was a creed drawn up in Sirmium at some time prior, most likely in 351. According to F.X. Funk, Liberius did add a 'saving clause in which he declared excommunicate whosoever should refuse to acknowledge that the Father and the Son resemble each other in all, even in their essence.'" (p. 190-91)
In footnote 90 of p. 190, I state: "Scholars debate over what creed Liberius signed in 357. Hilary, Athanasius, and Jerome all seem to indicate that he subscribed to a heretical anti-Nicene formula, otherwise known as the Second Sirmium Creed, which is outright, full-blown Arianism, i.e., professing that Christ was a creature in time. This view doesn't have the best defenses, however. See Beresford Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461, Vol. II (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992), 156-57. While Kidd notices the difficulties that come with saying Liberius signed the Second Sirmium Creed, he seems satisfied to carry the difficulties associates with it. I agree with Jalland, who believes that Liberius signed not the statement of the Western bishops at Sirmium in 357, which Hilary referred to as the Blasphemy, but the 'so-called' "Long" Sirmian Creed... drawn up under the leadership of Basil of Ancyra in 351. This creed reproduced substantially the 'Dedication' creed of Antioch 341... and was regarded as sufficiently orthodox by Hilary" (Jalland, Church and Papacy, 229n5). Contemporary scholarship seems to lean more toward this 351 Creed as the one Liberius initially signed to get out of exile, see Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Edinburch: T&T Clark, 1988), 357-62. FOr the most damning view of Liberius, see Edward Denny, Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims of the Papacy as Set Forth in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum (London: Rivingtons, 1912), 384-90. The consequence of this is that Hilary, or his editor, erroneously reported Liberius's signature on the Blasphemy document. I don't see this as being a difficult mistake to make. One of the strongest reason to deny that Liberius subscribed to the Blasphemy creed of 357 is that the former wrote in his letters to the Easterners his agreement with their statement of faith whereas the Creed of 357 was put together by Westerners; see Liberius, Letters in Exile, in Fragmenta Historica, Series B, VII.8, 10, 11, trans. Hilary, in The See of Peter, eds. Shotwell and Loomis, 583. Other scholars also take the position that liberius signed the more semi-Arian creed of Basil of Ancyra (i.e., the 'Dedication' creed of Antioch, 341); see L.D. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 95. S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (Mysterium Co., 2015), 115; William Carrolle, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 1987), 42-32n108; Kenneth D. Whitehead, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 234-246.; H.J.A> Sire, Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2015), 12, 16-17.

[@richardeves9059]

@@Erick_Ybarra A fair response. Thanks.

[@ferazonyteologia]

Without accumulating an immense mass of similar evidence, it will be sufficient to say that till the sixteenth century the fall of Liberius was accepted as one of the simply indisputable facts of Church history. The Acts of S. Eusebius of Rome were considered authentic, and they represent the saint as a victim of the heretical Pope whose communion he called upon every one to avoid.
Book 2 of Von Hefele on the Councils

[@mememe1468]

Suan, would you ever want to do a study on Rome as the intended seat of power as decided by Jesus?
As ive long been convinced of Peter's primacy amongst the apostles i do think , for catholics, we are missing something when we pour our reliance on specific people. It seems when we argue that peter and his succesors are given infallibility in specific instances that we run the risk having our arguments nullified when considering the popes erick brings up by orthodox. The only legitimate alternative to catholicism. It seems our track record of having good and bad popes is the same with eastern patriarchs.
Taylor marshall argues that Rome is the seat not simply because Peters succesive power began to be given there at his death but that Rome was the chosen city from whence Christs kingdom would have stronghold. He seems to be the only person in modern circles to argue this.
I wonder if this would be a robust addition to the new eliakim argument.

[@jameskellaher7070]

@Erick_Ybarra Let me run a thought by you and tell me what you think. The first two passages from Vigilius sound to me like essentially disciplinary decrees prohibiting discussion and attempts to discredit the material because of its use at Chalcedon. In short, the read as prudential decisions designed to defend Chalcedon without actually rendering a doctrinal judgment as to content. Conversely, the latter passage from Vigilius sounds essentially doctrinal in nature with an actual judgment upon the three chapters as impious and blasphemous. If my reading is correct there is no real issue here because it’s simply a case of an initial disciplinary decree later being made defunct by and superseded by an authoritative doctrinal judgment. Honestly, the dynamic here seems very similar to the Chinese Rites controversy: initial papal decrees from the 1600s and 1700s forbidding Confucian veneration practices and forbidding further discussion on the matter out of a desire to avoid the appearance of paganism later being abrogated in the 20th century with a doctrinal judgment from the pope that the Confucian practices in question were not religious in nature.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Hi! Did not see this for a while. Vigilius did say the letter of Ibas was orthodox and then later he annuled this and called it heretical

[@ferazonyteologia]

Saying a Council has erred and another Pope erred doesn’t help much Honorious’ case

[@alexpanagiotis4706]

Pope Martinus sacrificed Idols

[@David-nl8pw]

With all the controversey that was surrounding Pope Vigilius election (secret pact with Theodora, etc.) perhaps the easy answer is that Vigilius had a defect of consent when he was elected so as to not actually receive the power of the Papacy.

[@connorlong3553]

St Robert Bellarmine says he was an antipope during his heresy

[@diegobarragan4904]

Your position is always wrong when It is accusing an ecumenical council as being in error.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

So is your position that everything in an ecumenical council is without error?

[@eabm1984]

If it comes with the authority of the Magisterium that Christ established, yes.

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Erick_Ybarra yes everything in the 7 holy ecumenical is without doctrinal and Disciplinary error

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@diegobarragan4904 Well, if that is the case, then you must believe in the Papacy.

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Erick_Ybarra of course we believe in the papacy as orthodox. But we reject that the papacy is infallible in himself and has universal immediate jurisdiction.

[@user-of9cj5jd1l]

Why do you delete my comment

[@user-ru4iq3ss9m]

I’m not sure why he did it.

[@OrthodoxStudy-wd5nk]

You forgot pope john 23, Paul 6, john Paul 2, Benedict 16 and Francis are major ones and then going all the way back to around the schism. Yes many Pope's and failed and taught error.