Have you started the book on Vatican I we talked about? It makes clear just how desperate the minority was to get even the slightest qualification on papal power into the text. Instead of consenting or even declining their urgent requests, Pius IX and the "majority" (of course, that's a majority formed out of an uprooted and papally remade French episcopate and an absurdly disproportionate representation of Italian bishops) rubbed their noses in it by adding "and not by the consent of the Church." The historical context makes it obvious what is being referenced- the exercise of the charism of infallibility in no way depends or has any relation to episcopal consent or even consultation. My jaw actually dropped at some of the things Elijah said. Effectively- "it's not possible for the pope to define contrary to the consent of the Church because whatever the pope decrees is by definition by consent of the Church!" If the Spirit genuinely is energizing in this charism, then sure, that would be impossible. Problem is that we know from tradition that the charism of infallibility was operative in and only in the co-operation of the synod and its primate- since, as the Fifth Council said, "two are better than one" and citing *Matthew 18* of all places, "where *two or three* are gathered in my Name, there I am among them." That passage from the Fifth Council spurred me to dive deeper into Matthew 16-18 to see what insight it has on the nature of primacy and collegiality. There is a *lot* there that I haven't yet done any material on yet.
I feel the most exposing thing one can do to Mr. Yasi's argument here is simply beg the question: supposing his formulation is true (leaving aside the massive historical evidence to the contrary), and papal infallibility must include concilliar consent, why bother having papal infallibility at all? Why bother defining a doctrine using verbiage that exists nowhere in the first millennium if what you truly meant by it is the relationship any bishop has with his local synod? The answer to anybody honest with himself is because the doctrine being defined is not simply concilliarism, else there would have been no need to define it at all.
@@duginashley3199 Well, that's where his confusion sets in: permission is needed, ok it isn't needed. Consultation is needed, but technically not needed. Ubi is confused on PI...buuut his video is a "nice intro to the Relation and PI." Ubi thinks he's an 'excerpt' because he makes videos on catholicism buuuut Yasi makes videos on Catholicism and somehow isn't condemning himself as an 'expert' because he uses 1/3 the number of citations as Ubi. It's all just rambling - some of it apparently drunken, too.
I had a very confusing conversation with an RC on YT replying to a comment I made on a vid. The whole conversation boiled down to we Orthodox are "mean" to RCs. I'm an old "cradle" Russian Orthodox guy and remember to good old days for the RCs in the fifties. If it didn't appeal to me back then, then why now? I'd like to extend a very great thank you to guys for doing this, you have helped this old guy immensely.
Good grief, I thought the first half of this was brutal, but he just dug himself a grave in the last half. Glad to know I’m getting what I’m paying for.
I cannot stand listening to Softon. Literally I feel my IQ lower and my mind turn to sludge as he speaks, just to try and slow down to his level. His speech and thought patterns are sloth-like. It's torture.
Hey Ubi. Hypothetically, If one of the Diamond Brothers challenged you to a debate, would you debate them? This isn't a snipe, theres just a bunch of trads coping saying that Peter Diamond would smash you in a debate, even when you released a debate challenge in your video. Im just asking if that debate challenge is still up
The Immaculate Conception was decreed by Pius IX ex cathedra, correct? So considering that the "Official Philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church", Thomas Aquinas, was opposed to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, how did Pius IX declare the Immaculate Conception as dogma with the "consent of the mind of the Church"? Am I on to something here? Please shed light on this train of thought if you can.
@@outpost4047That would be like me saying you worship St. Gregory Palamas for considering him a good teacher. You are not communicating in good faith. Even if you are responding to hateful Catholics (which you aren't) Christ expects better.
Looks like that booze is affecting his reading and listening comprehension skills. It would serve him well to stay away from the bottle when making videos. I have a soft spot for rye whiskey myself but I don't drink when working.
Now that I thnink of it, it seems to be the "cool" thing to do for a large number of Catholic RUclipsrs, to do their interviews with booze and/or a cigar. I think this is partislly larping, as a way to seem to themselves and onlookers as them being "cooler" and more "masculine."
Papalbro posits a totally made-up, imaginary, non-Catholic, non-canonical, Procedural Infallibility consisting of the Pope literally “sinning” (where is this taught anywhere in papal doctrine?) unless he first goes thru the procedure of consulting the bishops before proclaiming any possibly controversial teaching. Huh?
What ever duties or obligations the Pope has are completely irrelevant when juxtaposed to his authority and more importantly the lack of consequence if he fails in his duties and obligations. The Pope cannot be removed, Correct. A subsequent Pope can’t reverse a previous Pope or even his direct predecessor, correct? What was in the mind of the Bishops a Vatican II is also irrelevant because there is no need to attempt to recreate their intent as we have their action. A hermeneutical analysis is stupid, no archeology is required, no newly discovered documents can be revealed to explain history. We can watch it on television in documentaries produced by the Vatican.
The more I see protestant and catholic apologists, the more I think they believe apologetics is just shooting the breeze and coming up with stuff on the spot
@@ubipetrus3882 I am a huge fan of your channel and love when the topic of Uniate’s come up I learn a lot . I think you’re not only the best orthodox apologist but the best eastern Christian apologist
@InnocentAlaska I mean, I kinda get your point but in the end, you'll frustrate yourself when you understand that "true" Catholicism is represented perfectly by people who go to rad trad groups like SSPX or FSSP, who even promote latinization and not venerating post schism saints, because as infallibly defined by the pope in papal bull unam sanctam and the council of Florence, there is no salvation outside the Roman pontiff (and it's very explicit, there can't be a more nuanced interpretation). Once you get that, you'll understand that being an eastern catholic is a huge mental gymnastic. "We accept the pope, even though our liturgy is developed by a schismatic church" "We accept the pope, even though popes have infallibly decreted that some of our saints should have no salvation (Palamas, Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarov)" "We commune with other catholics, even though some think our prayer methods are buddhist and satanic" See what I mean? In the end all the fullness of the beauty of the east resides in orthodoxy, and you can even see it in monasticism. I
@@kianoghuz1033 I agree with you completely but I’m in a situation in life where being orthodox isn’t an option for me right now, I have to live as close as possible and that is Eastern Catholicism… please pray for me.
@@InnocentAlaska God bless you! My orthodox church is also like 5 hours away. It still has a long but steady way to grow. I attend catholic for the moment and I'm not even a catechumen in the Orthodox church yet. Faith is what will give us strength. No matter what
Ubi Petrus, do you really believe in all of the dogmas of Eastern Orthodoxy or are you simply a stereotypical "Online Orthobro" who is in it for mere grifting purposes??
There's an open debate challenge and so far, only MT has taken me up on it. The other three, I had to approach. The vast majority of those whom I've offered a debate to (even offering as much as 300% of my time), have refused, which seems really peculiar if they were able to 'destroy my content,' right?
@@ubipetrus3882 have you viewed, William Albrecht’s responses to your content? Also, I apologize if my comment came off as very harsh. I love the orthodox faith, and was very close. But that among a few other things kept me from it. Nonetheless your content was what got me close. His videos are excellent tho, and challenge your researched claims with due respect
@@shanesolar3924, Albrecht's "arguments" are little more than one enthusiastic fallacy after another. These fool and impress the average person because, sadly, the average person has little-to-no formation or training in authentic philosophy or theology. Granted, he can be entertaining to watch... kind of like watching a multi-vehicle car wreck place from a safe distance. It is hard to look away. But once you realize what is going on -- how genuine truth is being just absolutely sacrificed and destroyed -- it becomes kind of painful.
@@shanesolar3924 If you're talking about the four part series supposedly responding to St. Clement, I got through the first couple and found the content so exceptionally underwhelming that I just stopped. A few people watched it all the way through and said it was just more of the same (lots of self-congratulatory statements, boasting, ego-masturbation, et al). They spent roughly eight hours arguing that St. Peter was the first pope when that was never my contention. William states out the outset of the first video that he isn't going to tackle the claims I make in the video about the letter of St. Clement and that should've told you everything you needed to know: he wasn't actually responding to me and he doesn't actually have any arguments, he was just using my name in the title for clickbait. I've offered debates to both William and James and it turns into endless obfuscations, stalling, and excuses before they just stop responding. Recently, James demanded it be a 2 vs. 2 debate and I proposed a 2 vs. 1 in which I was the one - I haven't heard from him since.
@@ubipetrus3882 quick question: I just talked to dwong in his comments and he said that noone other than Craig Truglia Has responded to his arguments for the Filioque and that he's yet to be refuted. Are there any good refutations on his Filioque arguments?
Looking back, watching the entire 6, 7, 8 hours or whatever it was from Yasi played a significant role in me coming to Orthodoxy.
Have you started the book on Vatican I we talked about? It makes clear just how desperate the minority was to get even the slightest qualification on papal power into the text. Instead of consenting or even declining their urgent requests, Pius IX and the "majority" (of course, that's a majority formed out of an uprooted and papally remade French episcopate and an absurdly disproportionate representation of Italian bishops) rubbed their noses in it by adding "and not by the consent of the Church." The historical context makes it obvious what is being referenced- the exercise of the charism of infallibility in no way depends or has any relation to episcopal consent or even consultation.
My jaw actually dropped at some of the things Elijah said. Effectively- "it's not possible for the pope to define contrary to the consent of the Church because whatever the pope decrees is by definition by consent of the Church!" If the Spirit genuinely is energizing in this charism, then sure, that would be impossible. Problem is that we know from tradition that the charism of infallibility was operative in and only in the co-operation of the synod and its primate- since, as the Fifth Council said, "two are better than one" and citing *Matthew 18* of all places, "where *two or three* are gathered in my Name, there I am among them."
That passage from the Fifth Council spurred me to dive deeper into Matthew 16-18 to see what insight it has on the nature of primacy and collegiality. There is a *lot* there that I haven't yet done any material on yet.
Yes, it was a fantastic book, thank you again for recommending it. I finished it before we aired the video and incorporated it into the slideshow.
I feel the most exposing thing one can do to Mr. Yasi's argument here is simply beg the question: supposing his formulation is true (leaving aside the massive historical evidence to the contrary), and papal infallibility must include concilliar consent, why bother having papal infallibility at all? Why bother defining a doctrine using verbiage that exists nowhere in the first millennium if what you truly meant by it is the relationship any bishop has with his local synod? The answer to anybody honest with himself is because the doctrine being defined is not simply concilliarism, else there would have been no need to define it at all.
What book?
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 I mention it in the video: John O'Mally's "Vatican I." It's very much worth the read.
@@duginashley3199 Well, that's where his confusion sets in: permission is needed, ok it isn't needed. Consultation is needed, but technically not needed. Ubi is confused on PI...buuut his video is a "nice intro to the Relation and PI." Ubi thinks he's an 'excerpt' because he makes videos on catholicism buuuut Yasi makes videos on Catholicism and somehow isn't condemning himself as an 'expert' because he uses 1/3 the number of citations as Ubi.
It's all just rambling - some of it apparently drunken, too.
I had a very confusing conversation with an RC on YT replying to a comment I made on a vid.
The whole conversation boiled down to we Orthodox are "mean" to RCs. I'm an old "cradle" Russian Orthodox guy and remember to good old days for the RCs in the fifties. If it didn't appeal to me back then, then why now?
I'd like to extend a very great thank you to guys for doing this, you have helped this old guy immensely.
Pro tip: Do not drink when doing apologetics.
1:12:20 is hilarious... that guy Yasi states that Vatican 2 was supposed to be a friendly council with message to the world "we are not that bad".!
The Council of the Sacramento Kings "We aren't that bad"
That bottle of beer is Stella Artois
Repent and come to Orthodoxy the true unchanged church
Unchanged? 🤣
You better learn History about your own ‚church‘.
@@dermoldawe8498 I don't take orders from papal orcs
Unchanged? So divorce and contraception always existed and wasn't a later developed teaching contrary to the scriptures?
@@a.ihistory5879 who says the church affirms divorce and contraception
@@a.ihistory5879that’s all you guys ever have to throw at us. Meanwhile your church is literally a worldwide crime syndicate boomer sex cult.
Good grief, I thought the first half of this was brutal, but he just dug himself a grave in the last half. Glad to know I’m getting what I’m paying for.
Love the work you do brother keep going🙏🏿☦️
I cannot stand listening to Softon. Literally I feel my IQ lower and my mind turn to sludge as he speaks, just to try and slow down to his level. His speech and thought patterns are sloth-like. It's torture.
We need more content refuting the papacy, my brother.
this voice modifier sounds pretty bad, raspy and hard to understand
Why do Ubi’s opponents always take to the bottle?
Elijah is another "Reason" & Cosmology guy, so I'm not surprised about his weak arguments.
The most offensive name I've heard for them so far is "Retardation and Hypocrisy."
@@ubipetrus3882 I wouldn't go that far. I prefer "Treason and Cosmology".
"Racism and Astrology
@@acekoala457that's actually based af tho
Hey Ubi. Hypothetically, If one of the Diamond Brothers challenged you to a debate, would you debate them? This isn't a snipe, theres just a bunch of trads coping saying that Peter Diamond would smash you in a debate, even when you released a debate challenge in your video. Im just asking if that debate challenge is still up
excoriating.... this guy..... he's...... got an interesting take on things that seems.... very inordinary.
The Immaculate Conception was decreed by Pius IX ex cathedra, correct? So considering that the "Official Philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church", Thomas Aquinas, was opposed to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, how did Pius IX declare the Immaculate Conception as dogma with the "consent of the mind of the Church"?
Am I on to something here? Please shed light on this train of thought if you can.
Because an individual theologian is not the entirety of the Church. It’s really not hard to understand.
@@bansheebrethren797your religion scholasticism was literally invented by Thomas Aquinas, his intellect is literally worshiped
@@outpost4047 grow up and read a book. Stop doing strawmans
@@bansheebrethren797 He's right you know
@@outpost4047That would be like me saying you worship St. Gregory Palamas for considering him a good teacher. You are not communicating in good faith. Even if you are responding to hateful Catholics (which you aren't) Christ expects better.
Slides 15-21 - basically, the pope's infallibility in context is that it won't go sideways because the pope is infallible.
Looks like that booze is affecting his reading and listening comprehension skills. It would serve him well to stay away from the bottle when making videos. I have a soft spot for rye whiskey myself but I don't drink when working.
Now that I thnink of it, it seems to be the "cool" thing to do for a large number of Catholic RUclipsrs, to do their interviews with booze and/or a cigar. I think this is partislly larping, as a way to seem to themselves and onlookers as them being "cooler" and more "masculine."
Nah, you cooked him. That guy is not even close to your level tbh.
I like the content but is your voice edited? It's difficult to listen to.
Scrambler as a precausion. RCs are nown to attack socially like women do.
commenting for the algorithm
Papalbro posits a totally made-up, imaginary, non-Catholic, non-canonical, Procedural Infallibility consisting of the Pope literally “sinning” (where is this taught anywhere in papal doctrine?) unless he first goes thru the procedure of consulting the bishops before proclaiming any possibly controversial teaching.
Huh?
What ever duties or obligations the Pope has are completely irrelevant when juxtaposed to his authority and more importantly the lack of consequence if he fails in his duties and obligations. The Pope cannot be removed, Correct. A subsequent Pope can’t reverse a previous Pope or even his direct predecessor, correct? What was in the mind of the Bishops a Vatican II is also irrelevant because there is no need to attempt to recreate their intent as we have their action. A hermeneutical analysis is stupid, no archeology is required, no newly discovered documents can be revealed to explain history. We can watch it on television in documentaries produced by the Vatican.
The more I see protestant and catholic apologists, the more I think they believe apologetics is just shooting the breeze and coming up with stuff on the spot
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men Lord Acton
As a eastern catholic I am very excited for this
What about being an Eastern Catholic makes this exciting for you?
@@ubipetrus3882 I am a huge fan of your channel and love when the topic of Uniate’s come up I learn a lot . I think you’re not only the best orthodox apologist but the best eastern Christian apologist
@InnocentAlaska I mean, I kinda get your point but in the end, you'll frustrate yourself when you understand that "true" Catholicism is represented perfectly by people who go to rad trad groups like SSPX or FSSP, who even promote latinization and not venerating post schism saints, because as infallibly defined by the pope in papal bull unam sanctam and the council of Florence, there is no salvation outside the Roman pontiff (and it's very explicit, there can't be a more nuanced interpretation). Once you get that, you'll understand that being an eastern catholic is a huge mental gymnastic.
"We accept the pope, even though our liturgy is developed by a schismatic church"
"We accept the pope, even though popes have infallibly decreted that some of our saints should have no salvation (Palamas, Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarov)"
"We commune with other catholics, even though some think our prayer methods are buddhist and satanic"
See what I mean? In the end all the fullness of the beauty of the east resides in orthodoxy, and you can even see it in monasticism. I
@@kianoghuz1033 I agree with you completely but I’m in a situation in life where being orthodox isn’t an option for me right now, I have to live as close as possible and that is Eastern Catholicism… please pray for me.
@@InnocentAlaska God bless you! My orthodox church is also like 5 hours away. It still has a long but steady way to grow. I attend catholic for the moment and I'm not even a catechumen in the Orthodox church yet. Faith is what will give us strength. No matter what
Ubi Petrus, do you really believe in all of the dogmas of Eastern Orthodoxy or are you simply a stereotypical "Online Orthobro" who is in it for mere grifting purposes??
Nothing
I’ve seen multiple videos destroying your content already. I look forward to your conversion so we can be in communion together for Christ
There's an open debate challenge and so far, only MT has taken me up on it. The other three, I had to approach. The vast majority of those whom I've offered a debate to (even offering as much as 300% of my time), have refused, which seems really peculiar if they were able to 'destroy my content,' right?
@@ubipetrus3882 have you viewed, William Albrecht’s responses to your content? Also, I apologize if my comment came off as very harsh. I love the orthodox faith, and was very close. But that among a few other things kept me from it. Nonetheless your content was what got me close. His videos are excellent tho, and challenge your researched claims with due respect
@@shanesolar3924, Albrecht's "arguments" are little more than one enthusiastic fallacy after another. These fool and impress the average person because, sadly, the average person has little-to-no formation or training in authentic philosophy or theology.
Granted, he can be entertaining to watch... kind of like watching a multi-vehicle car wreck place from a safe distance. It is hard to look away. But once you realize what is going on -- how genuine truth is being just absolutely sacrificed and destroyed -- it becomes kind of painful.
@@shanesolar3924 If you're talking about the four part series supposedly responding to St. Clement, I got through the first couple and found the content so exceptionally underwhelming that I just stopped. A few people watched it all the way through and said it was just more of the same (lots of self-congratulatory statements, boasting, ego-masturbation, et al). They spent roughly eight hours arguing that St. Peter was the first pope when that was never my contention. William states out the outset of the first video that he isn't going to tackle the claims I make in the video about the letter of St. Clement and that should've told you everything you needed to know: he wasn't actually responding to me and he doesn't actually have any arguments, he was just using my name in the title for clickbait.
I've offered debates to both William and James and it turns into endless obfuscations, stalling, and excuses before they just stop responding. Recently, James demanded it be a 2 vs. 2 debate and I proposed a 2 vs. 1 in which I was the one - I haven't heard from him since.
@@ubipetrus3882 quick question: I just talked to dwong in his comments and he said that noone other than Craig Truglia Has responded to his arguments for the Filioque and that he's yet to be refuted.
Are there any good refutations on his Filioque arguments?