A Friendly Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue on the Papacy w/ Ubi Petrus (Christian Theology Series)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Patreon: / intellectualconservatism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Podcast: intellectualco...
Facebook page: / intellectualconservatism
The purpose of Intellectual Conservatism is to defend the true, good and beautiful things of life that are jeopardized in mainstream academia and society. On this page, you will find artwork, music, satire, academic papers, lectures and my own projects defending the duty of conserving these true, good and beautiful things.
This was a superb interview, Suan. I think it's very important for Roman Catholics to gain a more accurate understanding of Orthodoxy, and this interview is a great step forward in accomplishing this.
It’s also important for the reverse to occur :)
@@jebbush2527 Ubi was a Roman Catholic for 20 years before converting to Orthodoxy, so I think he already has a pretty good grasp of everything on the RC side :) (better, in fact, than most RCs have since most RCs have never even read Vatican I).
Thank you for this dialogue! Would love to see more EO and RC discussions in the future.
Sadly, Catholic Apologists shy away from Eastern Orthodox.
See my comment above.
Great conversation! Hope to see more in the future. Though I am not Catholic, have enjoyed your content!
I was a Roman Catholic for 38yrs. I'm from a family that's produced priests and nunns in the 20th century.
I was a lay Apologist for the Roman Catholic Church (Rockford IL Diocese). I worked with Michael Voris giving him information on the happenings in the Chicago, Rockford and Joliet Diocese.
A study of First Millennium Councils and Canons destroys papal Supremacy. That's why as an Apologist I still needed special permission in the 1990s, before the internet, to read and study the Canons and Councils of the First Millennium.
I was curious why it was so special a subject...needing this special access.
I saw why almost immediately.
CANON 6 of Nicea 325AD specifically limits the authority of the Pope to Western Europe!
And on and on...Canon after Canon, THERE IS NO PAPAL SUPREMACY.
The VATICAN AGREED in 2016.
See "On Synodality and Primacy Cheiti Agreement September 2016",
Paragraph 19:
"...no pope ever exercised canonical authority over the Churches of the East.",
The Vatican can no longer continue lying about Objectively proveable historic FACTS....Not in the internet age.
I'm in my 3rd Decade in the Orthodox Church. It's the True Church.
The Orthodox Church IS ANCIENT CATHOLICISM!
See "Papal Forgeries". If you own the house, why forge its deed?
As a Former Irish Catholic, TODAY I practice and believe as St. Patrick of Ireland did. Catholics do not.
"Come and See".
PS: Mr. Y'barra has been running from me for many years. There are thousands of very devout, well cathecized Catholics who are discovering the Orthodox Church every year. Many Orthodox priests and nunns are former Catholics. There are former Catholics in every Orthodox Christian parish... Former very serious Catholic Deacons, nunns, Apologists and Laity.
Am I able to message you anywhere? I’m currently converting to Orthodoxy
Interesting. I am a Corinthian greek Catholic former orthodox . I completely disagree . From clement, to irenaus, to Victor, to the tome of pope Leo, to Agothos and so much more. Ur mental gymnastics is beyond belief. Remember these were all saints in the eastern rite .
@@TheGreekCatholic How many Catholic priests have you known who went to prison for being child predators? FYI...I avoid the Greeks (GOARCH) at all costs. They lack an Orthodox Christian spirit largely and in my experience are xenophobic, which is antichrist.
Saying u simply disagree without any evidence against canon 6 is pretty weak in my opinion. And all of those saints agree with EO. Please read their letters and books and not quote mines. @@TheGreekCatholic
@@TheGreekCatholic Respectfully, your own church disagrees with you. As stated in the Chieti document, no pope ever exercised canonical authority over the Churches of the East.
I love how cordial these two are, I like that Ubi is quick to find common ground and agree with his opponents, and how Suan is honest when he feels that he is not informed enough to take a hard stance on something unclear. Very good men, both of them!
Thank you Sonna! Although such a recent convert, you defended the Catholic position well.
As someone who has been looking into claims of both churches pretty deeply I can say Ubi and Jay Dyer have really pulled me east. I think a conversation with you and Jay would be great.
@C I can second this, the liturgy is truly special. If you like Catholic aesthetics maybe check out the orthodox western rite. They use the English translation of the pre Vatican 2 Latin mass as well as the lovely high Anglican mass.
They are quite intelligent but ask yourself this. Typically the Latin fathers call St Peter the prince or head of the apostles while Greeks call him coryphaeus which means, per the Lexicon, chief, leader, foremost man. If St Peter handed down that apostolic authority to St Linus today, Peter's successor could not decide unilaterally to visit Moscow because it is, we are told, outside his canonical territory. Or he might be told that all bishops are successors of Peter. Does that sound quite right to you?
@@esoterico7750 there is some easternisation in that as far as i have heard
@Kiwi Connoisseur jay dyer, the foul mouthed, Wicca promoting, uncharitable, egotistical fornicator is a great example of "Holy Orthodoxy"? At least you're honest
Fantastic with such a civilized and calm discussion!
Good Respectful' dialogue. Great!
@Ubi Petrus, personally I really appreciate 16:46 to 18:26.
Yes Ubi certainly cannot be accused of anti-Catholicism. He is a gentleman and the same can be said about Suan, who impressed me how he moderated the debate between Fr Dc Ananias and Christopher Tomaszewski.
Nama, did you see that I answered your question about ECs in this video?
@@ubipetrus3882 The question was "if a council is ecumenical because the patriaech confirmed it, why do we have ecumenical councils where some patriarch did not confirm it such as Ephesus (John of Antioch didn't confirm it) and Chalcedon (Dioscorus didn't confirm it)?" To which you said before that because they were excommunicated therefore their confirmation were not needed, and the new elected patriarch can confirm the council in place of them. Then I said that if that were the case then a rightful and just patriarch can be deposed just because he didn't agree with the coundil.
In this video you mentioned of the canon that can be used to excommunicate patriarch (tho you said in the video that you forgot what's the exact formula of this canon and where did it come from). Is this the answer to the question?
If it is then I need to look into that canon and re-read some ecumenical councils history again to see if the answer gives solution to the question.
@@namapalsu2364 Yes, that is the answer. In the deposition that I read from Ephesus, it mentions first that Nestorius refused the triple summons. The deposition of Dioscorus mentions likewise.
My friends recently converted to EO, please pray for him. He likes to say "debate Ubi Petrus" so when I saw that one of my favorite apologists for the papacy will have a talk with him, I literally jumped from excitement!
We did a 3-hour debate after this. Do you have the link?
@@intellectualcatholicism yes I'm watching it right now
@@intellectualcatholicism oh by the way, do you have any book recommendations for me to read on the papacy?
@@icxcnika2037 praying that someone goes into heresy and schism is demonic
@Goosa Poosa the pope randomly saying things is irrelevant. If he says big Mac's are better than whoppers it doesn't mean it's true.
Interesting, but it seems pretty clear that Irenaeus does NOT view Rome as just one of many apostolic churches and does NOT have just a Western audience in mind. Irenaeus compares the Church at Rome to ALL other churches everywhere and all the faithful everywhere.
Excellent discussion and much respect on both sides. I know this wasn't a 'debate', but most of the debates I've seen could use a lot more of this tone.
10:26 Wow, did he actually ask why have Ecumenical Councils if the Pope can just infallibly declare his decision on the matter? Is this what Orthodox think we believe the role of infallibility is, some kind of genie divining tool? When God says 'I won't allow you to lead the entire church into error by defining the faith heretically for the whole church' He's not saying, 'just tempt me by trying to teach the whole church and if it's wrong you will be struck dead.'
Obviously the Church is going to use the normal means of bishops using their normative teaching authority to bind the orthodox faith on the Church. The Pope simply has final say. Doesn't mean the final say should be the only say.
Imagine being this bad at strawmanning the papacy.
He elaborated on this in his response to Elijah Yassi I recommend you check that out
His point isn't just simply "if Pope infallible why have councils" - he's been pretty consistent in saying that there is no limit on what the Pope can and cannot do at least not from the Church itself, and given the Pope cannot be told he is wrong regarding infallible decrees and he has only a moral obligation about asking Bishops, that's a dangerous position if you're simply considering the Papacy and given that, it's not a stretch to ask why not simply use Papal Infallibility instead of holding Councils if the Pope doesn't need the consent of the Bishops to form binding doctrine whether it's ex cathedra or not.
Dear brother, thank you for representing the Church of God. I think the element that is often forgotten is that despite our Lord's intention that there be one body with one visible head the following 300 years of Christianity as a persecuted religion would be make that centralized unity impossible. Instead, particular centers of Christianity grew in prominence and would later become powerful Sees of authority.
It is no surprise therefore that when Christianity became legalized the other Sees would not readily accept the successor of Peter as their spiritual authority, and this was especially true of that newly invented See of Constantinople which had very significant worldly ambitions and desired to become the central authority itself.
And so arguments from silence from Greek Fathers are really not surprising at all. I think your argument of understanding the context of Matthew 16 was very well made and Ubi's attempt to render Peter a High Priest did not strike your point, namely that St Peter possessed authority. In other words, rendering him a High Priest is not exclusionary to him also acting as a deputy. The references of the various Fathers have to be understood in their context as Church's existing for centuries without being unified under the visible head our Lord established.
I appreciate this comment, as it captures my position well.
@@intellectualcatholicism thank you and if I may add, priestly authority as understood by Judaism is clearly demonstrated in the Maccabean revolt as well as in Caiaphas. Their spiritual authority was also an authority of governance like a theocracy.
The attempt to reduce this spiritual authority in a way that restricts governance is more a reflection of modern thinking than what can be see in 1st century Palestine.
Thank you again and God bless
The problem with this position is that it was only Constantinople which was power-grabby.
For instance, I'm a convert to Oriental Orthodoxy and one big part of my investigation was that before the Mohammedans became a thing, Rome (against Constantinople) held the ranking of the three Petrine Sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, to be absolutely immutable because it was by divine rite in the life of St Peter that it was established this way.
Alexandria and Antioch never power grabbed, and Rome always defended them until Islam made it difficult to maintain. I've heard that Erick Ybarra affirms that the ranking of the Sees is still the same and that Constantinople is fourth, to his credit, but from what I've seen this is just not true given the Council of Florence.
When Catholicism fights against Byzantinism for lack of a better term, they might find some pretty good points but actual Orthodoxy, which is non-Chalcedonian, is able to hold the right position on all these issues.
@@dioscoros The infamous 3rd canon which placed the newly invented See of Constantinople after Rome but before Alexandria was a disastrous innovation and goes to show that not all elements of a council can be understood as inspired. It offended the Alexandrian church and also identified primacy with the grandeur of a city.
My opinion is that the "ancient customs" which arose in a Christendom fragmented by persecution were happily endorsed by Councils under Greek hegemony precisely to undermine our Lord's original intention for the successor of Peter and raise the importance of a novel See.
So as a Catholic I can readily acknowledge scarcity of data from the AnteNicene Father but this is understandable from the context. When we look at the earliest strata of data, that of Peter in Galatians or the authority vested in Matthew 16, we see that our Lord indeed was established monarchical rule which was the very same rule of ancient Israel.
@@neophyteone712 Like I said, it was only Constantinople. Alexandria (which was also Greek) and Antioch (Syriac) never power grabbed and were victims of power grabbing, yet they didn't appeal to Rome's supremacy in the midst of these canons, those fathers never did with anything, canons or otherwise. When it comes to Is 22 and Mt 16, the only Fathers who use it are Syriac, because of their Jewish heritage, and they only apply it to their own Patriarch, not to Rome, even though the Syriac fathers certainly knew of Roman traditions such as St Peter being martyred upside down in Rome.
Dear other Orthodox/catechumens (I'm an Orthodox catechumen), don't skip this debate or just gloss over the parts you think you won't like. It's rare to see a debate online like this.
The belief between orthodoxy and catholism is ontological different in the sense what one see as Deity the other see it as created.
The papacy not being sacramental really destroys the whole RC position imo
Idk if it’s that easy
@@Deto4508 yeah I agree there’s more nuance to it
I watched and both of you behaved with great civility and gallantry. Would it have helped you if you had known beforehand that Latin fathers typically refer to St Peter as prince or head of the apostles, while Greeks generally call him coryphaeus, which means prince, leader, foremost man? If so, there will be a lot more coming your way..
Sonna’s interpretive hermeneutic is both ad hoc and post hoc, which is a tough way to make a convincing case.
Can you explain?
I’m surprised at just how consistently bad Ubi’s audio or microphone quality is.
It’s deliberate to hide/modify his real voice.
This dude is good but he’s gotta show his darn face at some point. Idk why he’s so secretive.
lol
Hey Ubi, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope Francis' theology is liberation theology "more or less." He may be loving and tolerant, pastoral in his approach but he is no liberal. And of course he is packing the College of Cardinals. That's what every pope does. It does not seem honest to use that against him.
why do you bring a robot?
I smell seething
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 I keep seeing you places, Reinhardt.
Ubi is just Jay Dyer behind a voice changing app
@@Linkgt lol that’s a hilarious theory. But they don’t remotely have the same vocabulary or cadence.
@@Linkgt dont doubt this their arguments are both incredibly bad
22:00 Rome was also important because they defeated Hannibal (Grace of Baal), and as such were like the Hebrews who destroyed the Canaanites. A perfect city to be the adopted seat of God's Church on earth for destroying the scourge of the Carthaginians.
All pagan gods are demons... Baal is not worse than others, it just happened that canaanites were the neighbors of hebrews...
@@nemeart I don't think you understood my point.
@@VACatholic You made a parallel but I think it is very superficial...
@@nemeart Tell me about Carthaginian society. Tell me about how they would sacrifice their children to Moloch, and how they became powerful. Tell me why the Romans refused to give up and when they finally defeated them, they salted the earth.
I just think you don't know what you're talking about and are pretending you do.
@@VACatholic Tell me about the Romans exposing their children, tell me about the Romans burying alive their vestals...
The Romans were terrified of Hannibal cause he almost took the city... The Carthaginians were their direct opposants for the control of the region and the Romans almost lost everything in the war. That is why they did a third seemingly unjustified 'war' against their old ennemy that was becoming a bit fruitful again and cursed the city... That was quite explicit from Cato's 'Carthago delenda est' locution, it was an obsession of his... That doesn't mean they were better than them... Their act wasn't to prevent them from human sacrifices and actually I am not sure they were doing it at that precise time...
They were only afraid that the city gained power again, the third war wasn't really a war and Rome wasn't threatened.
Mr. Sonna, how much did he charge to come on to your show, if I may ask?
$0
We went on his show and he came on ours. The agreement was that he could do whatever he liked with the video as far as monetizing it and we could do the same with the one on our channel. As much as Mr. Ybarra and Mr. Lofton spout off about us supposedly being horrible people, I hope you could see we are perfectly civil and agreeable people who are more than willing to discuss and debate with other fair and sincere people.
@@ubipetrus3882 Trim, caulk, and paint help make me the carpenter I ain't.
A public apology for your calumny and you too, could be a reasonable person.
@@VACatholic You would first have to identify my supposed "calumny."
@@ubipetrus3882 It's already been done, and you and I have both seen the clips. But I just got to the part where you called Michael Lofton out for his purity tests and saying he'd be a terrible person to have in your parish. That's funny. You can't even hide your bs when you're trying.
Try harder. Do some research. Have some shame.
Kind of disgusting that this anonymous crank would compare the Successor of Saint Peter to a polygamous wife.
Was not Israel called a prostitute when she fell into idolatry?
Reference?
@@jangutenberg4058 Ezekiel 16:15-63