Orthodox VS Catholic Debate on the Papacy w/ Fr. Patrick Vs Erick Ybarra
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 фев 2021
- The Resolution is: The Doctrine of Papal Primacy given at Vatican I is true to Apostolic Tradition. Bio's below.
Erick’s opening statement 3:08
Fr. Patrick’s opening statement 22:09
Erick’s first rebuttal 44:33
Fr. Patrick’s first rebuttal 50:22
Erick’s second rebuttal 57:55
Fr. Patrick’s second rebuttal 1:02:22
Cross examination 1:09:42
Q&A 1:40:02
Erick’s closing statement 2:14:25
Fr. Patrick’s closing statement 2:18:26
SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
Catholic Chemistry: www.catholicchemistry.com/?ut...
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
BIO's:
Fr. Patrick (John Ramsey) was born in 1970 in New Zealand. He attended University of Waikato in Hamilton New Zealand, completing Bachelor degrees in Science, majoring in Mathematics, and in Law with honours. He then completed a Master of Theology in Orthodox Studies at the University of Wales, in 2010 followed by a PhD in Orthodox ecclesiology in 2015 at the University of Winchester, England. He presently works as a distance tutor for the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England. He serves as a priest in the Western Rite deanery in the UK under the Russian Church Outside Russia. He has enjoyed engaging on Facebook discussions for a number of years after contributing to Orthodox blogs before this.
Erick Ybarra is a Latin rite Catholic speaker and blogger. Having graduated from the University of Central Florida with a B.S, he currently works for a global manufacturer in Technology. While entering University an atheist, he had an encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ through the Reformed Baptist tradition. After spending years as a Protestant, he crossed the horizon to high-Church Anglicanism where he prayerfully studied the Bible and Church History leading to his conversion to the Catholic Church. He is a co-host for popular RUclips channel Reason and Theology, and has made plenty of public appearances on Catholic social networks. His writings specialize in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and can be found www.ErickYbarra.org. He is a Husband and Father of 5 children, living in the upper Midwest of the United States.
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![MAF Teeski - Whole Thing (feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SHWEj-ndz6g/mqdefault.jpg)
We need more debates based upon Catholic and Orthodox theology and interpretation of scripture.
This to me anyway seems more important.
InstaBlaster
However, discussing whether or not Papal Primacy is true or in error, is very much centered in theology and interpretation of scripture. So, this cannot be separated.
That's certainly important, but the differences are much more reconcilable regarding theology. Ecclesiology is by far the biggest difference between the two Churches.
@@chanting_germ. Not every orthodox would agree with you. Thomism isn't a dogma in Catholicism, I don't know where you got that idea from. immaculate conception is not about inheritance of guilt, and eastern fathers believed the immaculate conception but then a council promptly forgot this and claimed the fathers never taught it. the catholic teaching on purgatory is also not at odds with orthodoxy. I disagree with clown mass as well, some bad people does not invalidate the entirety of catholicism. Papacy is real, there's just disagreement about it's exact role among us. What have you to say about Orthodox rejecting the apostolic teaching about contraception or divorce? Or about the different fathers in history talking about the power of the papacy? God Bless.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Not true, the filioque was used by Pope St. Leo, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Augustine, and others. Photius did not know this was being used in the West long before the schism. Also, St. Gregory is condemning the idea that there is only one bishop, and that the other bishops have no power at all. In another letter, he says Constantinople is subject to Rome:
"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see." (Epistles, IX.12)
*Timestamps*
Erick’s opening statement 3:08
Fr. Patrick’s opening statement 22:09
Erick’s first rebuttal 44:33
Fr. Patrick’s first rebuttal 50:22
Erick’s second rebuttal 57:55
Fr. Patrick’s second rebuttal 1:02:22
Cross examination 1:09:42
Q&A 1:40:02
Erick’s closing statement 2:14:25
Fr. Patrick’s closing statement 2:18:26
@Bryson Townsend MVP as always thank you.
@@hughmungus9739 No problem
St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022): "One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself." (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter).
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is A MATTER OF NECESSITY that all other city-churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its PREEMINENT AUTHORITY." (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).
My man
You da man
This is one of the most respectful debates that I have ever listened to.
We have to congratulate the Orthodox side for gamely airing their side. They truly are our brothers and sisters in Christ! Pretty soon, they are coming back to the Communion with the Petrine See. They too are Catholics, not just the Romans!
@@josemariademanila677Uhh... No thanks. We are happy being Orthodox. Please don't assume we are "really" Catholics.
@@matthewgroh8797 I did no simply assume. First I've learned it from Church History when the Church had no schisms.2nd, it was an Orthdox priest himself who chided me when I said that I was Catholic. He told me "We Orthodox are also Catholics, me friend!" Ofcourse who am I to grab that label all alone for my Roman Church and arrogate it for myself when in fact, historically, those Churches who were united in Faith despite their diverse expressions of the same Apostolic Faith?
But if it is division you want to foment, so be it. Remember that it is UNITY that Christ prayed for his followers, and if you are happy being disunited, that is something diabolical.
@@josemariademanila677 It's not "diabolical" to acknowledge the very real differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Unity needs to be based on a shared faith (even with diverse expression) as it was during the first millennium.
I'm not fomenting division. The division is there and it is real.
Loved the spirit of the debate! Thanks for hosting
You all did this so well.
Thank you very very much for this intelligent and compassionate discussion!
Your Orthodox brother in Christ.
I love so much that you do these debates, I hope much more 🖒
Many thanks to Fr. Patrick, Erick, and of course Matt for this debate. Glad to have learned about two new great minds!
The primary difference in the Orthodox and Roman views of Papal primacy is that the Orthodox hold that the valid Pope of Rome is the leader of the Patriarchs, such as a president of the Synod of the Patriarchs, but not a monarch, and that he does not have fiat authority, and the councils are lead by the Holy Spirit into relative consensus, not by the dictates of one person. Pope's in the past have affirmed that councils have greater authority than popes. A Pope could not, for example, remove a priest from a parish under another Patriarch's jurisdiction, or walk into a church in another Patriarch's jurisdiction and start serving the mass without permission, but he is the leader of the patriarchs. It also comes down to whether you trust the Holy Spirit to guide the councils into consensus, or if you needed one person with unlimited power.
the catholic, i included in this, have to answer why did 4 out of 5 patriarchates day papal authority doesnt excist in 1054? and you need to see how much authority peter actually had!
@@josephmary969 First of all, several Popes forbade adding the filioque to the ecumenical creed. The Creed posted on the Vatican on silver and gold shields does not include the filioque. Clearly, the creed without the filioque is not incorrect whether the filioque doctrine is true or not. The Pope forced the addition of the filioque precisely to create a schism between East and West so that he could get an Emperor who was closer to "home".
Of course the Holy Spirit is the guide . But the Holy Spirit does not work in vacuum but through people and He is a Spirit of order not disorder , so there can never be a time when there is no single leader on earth for the church. At the first council In the Acts , we see Peter giving direction and James concludes this is well with the Holy Spirit
@@AsiimweTeopista-mz8ct Again, some disagree, but the Orthodox view is that the Pope should have doctrinal primacy, ecclesiastical primacy and administrative primacy, but not Supremacy. Issues need to be resolved, but he should lead the Patriarchs and Bishops into strong consensus, and giving the Holy Spirit the time to work through the community of the Synods of bishops. So he could call councils, preside over them, determine the agenda and decide when a consensus hasn't been reached, but he can't make a unilateral over-riding ruling. The way of the Church was to pray to the Holy Spirit to provide strong consensus.
@@mertonhirsch4734your problem is that “some disagree”, because Orthodoxy can barely even dogmatically affirm anything after “Constantinople 5” because Orthodoxy is basically a collegial church. They are even part of the world council of churches, which even the modernist Vatican 2 sect isn’t a part of.
Proud of being an eastern orthodox christian i like this channel.Fr patrick really make me proud of being orthodox in here.
Amen! Me too
Amin brother ☦
Proud?? Proud is not welcome in Heaven my dear Friend, and how can you Be proud being an E.O, where they support divorce and remarriage and especially Deny the Immaculate conception, don't you say You eastern orthodox venerate the blessed Mother but deny a Dogmatic Truth, you are a heretic if you deny the marian Dogma.
@@jaysealenduro5618 You are a protestant catholic apostate. You pro gay Pope with Rock and Clown Masses. Sitting on pews, clapping hands and dancing.
PROUD BEING ORTHODOX! GLORY BE TO GOD
@@jaysealenduro5618 ST. THOMAS WAS AGANST THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION- ST. ALBERTUS MAGNUS TOO. ST. BERNHARD, ...THEY CALLED IT HERESY
Excellent debate, congenial, respectable, well informed. Only wish it was even longer. I can't wait for Erick's book on the Papacy. Thanks again Matt! God Bless.
When you see many names you recognize on R&T streams 😍😄
Thank you to all the participants and Matt for hosting the debate.
There's only one thing I'd like to say. There's an important and obvious difference between the espousal of heretical ideas not being disciplined (yet) in a Communion that, for better or worse, requires synodal consensus to pronounce anathemas (which takes time), and a Communion that relies entirely on the coherence with tradition of its frequent, explicit teachings from what it claims to be an infallible Magisterium whose pronouncements command ascent of intellect and will from all the faithful, explicitly permitting and effectively rubber stamping the veneration of those it has already anathematized as heretics. I have not studied this issue in depth so I am open to correction, in particular with the wording "explicitly permitting and effectively rubber stamping" and "veneration". However, Erick's "allowed to uphold the memory of..." seems like an obvious euphemism for veneration and the context of Roman Catholicism's views of how its Magisterium operates and the response that is dogmatically expected from the faithful, would incline me to believe that my wording is likely not too far off from the reality
What an excellent episode. One of the best in terms of clear concise detail.
Very thought provoking debate. Need to watch again, however.
I pray that one day we will all be one!
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Based pfp
@@hunterw5549 Absolute Divine Simplicity is not Catholic dogma. Yes, it is the thomistic view, but a Catholic is not obliged to believe in this part of thomism. A Catholic is allowed to belive in Palamism.
@@vituzui9070 We (Catholics) have to affirm Divine Simplicity. The 'Absolute' part is just a meme.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese I did't deny that the doctrine exist. I said it is not dogma. And that is why eastern Cathoilcs can believe in Palamism. Divine simplicity is dogma (in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy), but absolute divine simplicity is not dogma. Duns Scot doesn't believe in absolute divine simplicity either and he is still considered a great Catholic doctor. None of the quotes you provide proves that absolute divine simplicity is dogma, and most of them are not even form the Magisterium.
The Catholic Church didn't settle the matter for now, and that is why Catholics are allowed to have diverging opinions on the matter. And no, Palamas is not considered a heretic by us. Yes, he was considered a heretic by some Catholic theologians, but never by the Church herself.
@@Augustinianismus No, it's not a meme. It points to real differences in doctrine. But not in dogma. Saint T. Aquinas believed that there was no real distinction in God (except the Trinity). Duns Scot, Palamas and other disagree. But real distinctions in God don't go against divine simplicity as defined by the dogma. That's why we can believe in scotism or palamism.
Most interesting debate I've heard yet. I'm learning so much!
I think this sort of discussion and debate is so important for the reunion of the Church. I wonder, though, if it would be better had in written form, similar to how WLC often has written versions of his performed debates?
I really think you should turn off comments during the livestream and open it up after a few days so people can watch the debate for what it is minimising external influence and then later see the feedback of the comments etc. Just an idea although I know that might be impractical especially in terms of views/interaction comments always help to engage. Anyway thank you Matt! God Bless.
I would rather see a debate between a Roman Catholic theologian and an Eastern Orthodox theologian on the nature of deifying grace. Such a debate could also highlight the different approaches of east and west on divine simplicity.
If you haven't already, read Anne Williams' book on deification in Aquinas and Palamas.
I understand quite well the evidence for both papal infallibility, but also for the relationship among all the bishops to be one of Charity and striving for a common goal, but all I'll say is that this distinction b/w east and west would be a whole lot more obsolete if we just had holier clergy in general.
Great debate. I am Catholic but am intrigued by the Orthodox point of view. Still, when I listen to these debates between such educated people, much of it is just way over my head. I wonder if God meant it to be this hard? What about the "faith of a child"?
I agree,,,I think that sometimes, we are in danger of missing the forest for the trees.....Just like the children who wanted to go to Jesus but were stopped by the apostles who did not want him disturbed...and Christ says "suffer the children...." I dont think God is as impressed with our theology as we are...I believe he's more interested in our love
@Reactionary Hermit Yes It's truly a headache, I'm coming from a Protestant background.
But I think I do reject Protestantism as it isn't viable, it has no way of resolving issues.
These debates can help a lot, and likewise also add to the confusion.
@Conquering Death Even 2000 years ago, there were disputes between Paul and Peter.
@Eremias Ranwolf This might make you think whether God sent another prophet to rectify the issues and make the message clear for all mankind? Would advise to look into Islam.
@Eremias Ranwolf 1000 years ago, it was much easier to determine which was the true church...barring a few heretical sects in the far east, there was only one Christian Church. Unfortunately, many wicked men over the centuries have made countless ruptures to the Body of Christ. Therefore, it is our duty as Christians to strive for that unity which Christ wills, and which He prayed for on the night of the Last Supper.
Great Debate. I'm an Ex-Roman Catholic, now Orthodox. But I still enjoy your channel & debates, especially with atheists, Matt.
@zedd It is indeed growing. You can help by converting to the Holy Orthodox Church. God bless.
I fear for your soul man. Why did you convert?
@@vituzui9070 because the pope today is not a man of God
Dusun Prince bad decision ever is being in communion with pachamama-worshipping bergoglio
@@muscularcatholicism Because that was a pragmatic command, following the old laws and commandments is prudent to stay alive and please the Lord but it alone will not save you from the second death only those that confess his Son with hearts and tongue will be risen again
I think Fr Patrick’s distinction between the personal office and the testimony and office of the Petrine See was epic.
I am pleased with the debate. Comunication with both sides is one of the steps required for reconciliation.
What a great debate!
Please require a mic for each of your zoom-in guests, I lost attention way too many times due to lack of quality in fr’s audio
Great job, Eric! Your arguments were far more rooted in Scripture and history. Thank you for helping me believe in this divinely established church all the more.
Most people probably heard their side validated. There’s also a difference in the approach to the authority of history that was/is between Latin West & Greek East which seemed to be manifest in Eric’s singular precedent of Pope St. Martin. EO don’t seem to mine history for precedents in the same way or for a decisive result. History & even canon law at times seems more descriptive than pre- or proscriptive. Am I broadly right on this?
That is the kind of debate that we need to see more often. Two very knowledgeable and charitable christians who expose and challenge claims in a very respectful way. Every debate needs to be edifying for everyone and should never include insulting or dismissive attitudes towards the other party. That's a two thumbs up for me, thanks to this debate, I learned a lot.
After being raised Jehovah’s Witness then wandering evangelicalism for 6 years I’m now inquiring with orthodoxy but I’m a bit unsure on the debate between orthodox and Catholic. I know for sure that I’m not sure 🤷♀️
It is hard to be sure at all in these matters, there are so many bright minds from all sides.
I was a protestant as well, eventually became Catholic.
Though it may be hard to sift through the weeds and still is, I do think the Catholic side makes the most sense.
As in, Christ founded one church, one faith, one baptism.
The Catholic church is the only church which at least theoretically is able to be unified.
Protestant denominations ... which one?
They don't all agree, from fundamentals to petty things, the first of course being important.
Orthodox -> The problem I encounter here is likewise ... which one?
They aren't all in communion with each other, which Orthodox faith is the one?
It's all divided ethnically as well Greek, Russian, etc.
Where as the Catholic Church is One church, unified under the Roman Pontiff.
The Catholic church is diverse (different rites for example), yet still unified, without the unifying basis being ethnicity.
It seems to me that what the early creeds confess The Church to be (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) is only found in the Catholic Church.
Hope this helps a bit, though it is very hard to be sure!
Be sure of this, God loves you, and He understands you.
Just do your best in prayer, and don't beat yourself up on being wrong in accident, the trouble is where we sin knowledgeable.
There are true Christians in all denominations, even though they could be in the wrong denomination and hold to some wrong doctrine unknowing that it is false.
The Catholic Church and it's Catechism affirm this.
Yet truth is important of course!
Catholicism. God bless your search.
Secular history speaks for Orthodoxy and that’s saying a lot, if Orthodoxy doesn’t need revisionist history to back its claim there’s a lot of legitimacy there
@@sotem3608 All Eastern Orthodox and Western Rite Eastern Orthodox churches have the same theology and are in communion with one another, if that's what you mean about the Greek and Russian churches. The only difference is the liturgical languages. The differences between the branches are similar to the differences between Latin and Byzantine Rite in Catholicism, but less pronounced.
Oriental Orthodox are separate, and split off before the Great Schism, along with the Coptics and Ethiopians.
Just visit both churches ❤ then make your decision
Concerning the action of some Popes of Rome (and St Maximus the Confessor) during the monothelite crisis (VIIth century), it should always be emphasized that three of the four Oriental Patriarchates - that is Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople - were then fallen officially into heresy (not condemning monothelitism), while the See of remaining one (Jerusalem) was vacant since the death of St Sophronius consecutive to the Arab conquest. The Pope of Rome could ask bishops to try and settle things in Palestine (where there still remained a solid orthodox core faithful to the teaching of St Sophronius) because there was no actual Patriarch of Jerusalem in power, and that the other Oriental Patriarchs were Monothelites (being subjected to this "statu quo" by uncanonical imperial dominion). This situation is rather extraordinary and can find some echoes only in the former "Arian crisis" and the following "Iconoclasm crisis" (mostly "convened" also by the Emperors, when they chose to support heretic bishops). An extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary reactions to fight heresy (as was the case when the Arians tried to expel St Athanasius from his See and let him no choice but to flee to Rome for support - the main precedent motivating the specific canons of the Council of Sardica), and this context explains a lot the politics of St Maximus, the Palestinian monks and the See of Rome during this whole crisis. The authority of Old Rome had to be emphasized in order to protect the orthodox faith that was in danger, and Rome was "free" to convene an anti-Monothelite council (Lateran 649) because it was not de facto subjected to direct imperial dominion, unlike the Oriental Patriarchates (Palestine being then under Arabic rulership and deprived of its Patriarch). In the mind of St Maximus, it seems, the Lateran Council of 649 was supposed to be the VIth Ecumenical Council, and it could have been, but the universal Church decided otherwise (probably because the Lateran Council did not have sufficient canonical credentials, being convened without the consent of the four other Patriarchs) and convened the true VIth Council in 680/681, during which Pope Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite heretic, along with the other heresiarchs. St Maximus, a simple monk highly influenced by the Petrine Roman ideology, tried to defend the orthodoxy of Honorius, but in vain : all the Patriarchs and the Holy Synod anathematized Honorius without any ambiguity. If the Eastern Fathers did not specifically reacted to some of the claims of Pope St Agatho, because these were not the main theological matter to be dealt with, they indirectly answered to any claim of papal infallibility by anathematizing a former Pope of Old Rome. One thing are the claims in the Synodal Letters of some Popes of Old Rome, another thing are the way the Eastern Fathers understood them or paid proper attention to them. What is deemed "dogmatic" today by RCs (equipped with Vatican I glasses) was then mostly considered as common flowery rhetoric and pure claims that couldn't in any way contradict the canonical institution of the Church as held by the Ecumenical Councils. The reference to Peter and his primacy was used and understood quite differently in the first millenium, especially in the East, where there were so many Apostolic Sees with apostolic foundation that one See could not really claim overall jurisdiction, if not through the canonical decisions of the Councils. In the West, of course, the situation was quite different : Rome was "the Apostolic See", and most of the other local Churches (especially in continental Europe), were founded by apostolic Fathers sent from Rome. If one would go then in the East and ask "Where is the Apostolic See?", people would answer "Which one?" or indicate their own Patriarch, because he would be the one possessing this supreme Apostolic authority in the given jurisdiction.
PS : St Maximus did not believe however that Old Rome was infallible on its own (that is without the consent of the Councils and bishops), and that it could not fall into heresy. That is why when Pope Vitalian joined with the Monothelites and the imperial theological "policy of silence" over the issue, St Maximus did not bow to Rome's decision but stood firm and was deprived of his tongue and his right hand and sent into exile, where he died excommunicated by Rome as well (like St Meletius of Antioch in the IVth century). Was Old Rome the first See? Yes. Was it infallible in its dogmatic statements, independently from the synodal consent of the Church (as Vatican I claims)? No.
PS bis : the opinion of Fr Ramsey against Papadakis cannot be more than just an opinion : no binding canonical text teaches that the bishops of Rome are the exclusive successors of Peter thanks to a direct divine institution by Christ himself through the person of Peter. This "Petrine ideology and discourse" existed and developed in the West throughout the first millenium (cf. Demacopoulos' "Invention of Peter"), but it was not an Apostolic dogma of the faith (which Vatican I claims, against the Gallican ecclesiastical tradition, among others, within the post-schism Roman Church). No canon ever asserts that the authority of Rome is of divine institution. Claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility are not dogmas, they are claims. These claims must be clearly confessed as dogmas of the faith, that is present in Holy Scriptures or ratified by Ecumenical Councils' dogmatic definitions in order to be considered dogmas. Holy Scripture does not talk about Roman Petrine divine authority (no matter how we interpret the "Petrine verses"), and it is supported neither by early Apostolic Tradition (St Irenæus and St Ignatius do not teach universal Roman jurisdiction nor papal infallibility, but can be understood as pointing to a preeminent ecclesiastical status in honor of Peter and Paul and the imperial dignity of the city of Rome). Papadakis' point of view must remain an important Orthodox take on the issue : regardless of the fact that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered as expressing the "will of God", which is not put into question, there is no universally binding canonical proof that the ecclesiastical preeminence of Rome is due to a direct divine institution from Christ (not through the Councils, but from Christ in person, supposedly teaching Roman supremacy to St Peter). In the same way, though St Gregory the Great clearly thought and taught that there were three Sees of Peter - namely Rome, Antioch and Alexandria - and was clearly against the idea of a "universal bishop" having binding power over all the others - this "three See ideology" is also nothing but an opinion of St Gregory, and the canons of Nicæa appeal to nothing but ancient ecclesiastical custom regarding those Sees, not divine prerogatives given by the Lord Himself. The truth, it seems to me, is that our Lord Jesus-Christ did not care a single bit about which See would have jurisdiction over what area and to what extent, and do not teach that one of them should have supremacy over the others (though he teaches pastoral care and mutual brotherly correction), all the Evangelical teaching and spirit goes in favor of Apostolic collegiality and brotherhood (as exampled in the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts:15, presided by St James). When the question of supremacy and authority arise among the disciples in the Gospels, Jesus always nullifies the idea that there should be such a thing among the Apostles, and precisely states that authority in the Church shall not function as in secular kingdoms, so that the "subsidiarity doctrine" of Pius IX is in fact anti-evangelical and an attempt to secularize ecclesiology (in line with the fact that the Pope was secular "King of the Pontifical States" since the donation of Pepin the Short and theoretically King over all kings according to "Unam Sanctam", a papal bull of the early XIVth century). While Pius IX wants to compare the Church to any other kingdom or state needing a single universal leader, Jesus teaches the exact contrary : "Let it not be thus among you". The canons follow this holy teaching of Christ and support synodality and concord among bishops, not Papal monarchy.
In the Sixth ecumenical council was declared that Honorius, pope of Rome, was heretic.
So Rome patriarch fell into heresy too
I was struggling after seeing a few videos of Latin points against Orthodoxy, but after reading this, that has been quelled. Thank you brother, Christ is Risen.
You should be making some videos, brother. God bless
@@Orthodoxology Thank you very much! I don't feel confident and tech-savvy enough to do that yet, but maybe in the future. I have a lot to study before considering "public teaching" on the net. God bless!
I thought this was a great debate. What I struggle with is that the supremacy and primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not specifically addressed earlier. If it was such a corner stone of the faith and essential to church why was this not specifically stated during the early counsels?
because it was so widely accepted, it wasnt an issue. Almost every doctrine pronounced at councils was touching on subjects that were in debate at the time. The Primacy of Rome wasnt an issue, and even at the time of the great schism was less of an issue.
@@lionheart5078 Could be, but that begs the question. Once you believe the doctrine, of course it was there hidden without issue. Or maybe it wasn't.
@@amg2598 then you need to look at the writings of the fathers to see what was believed, they werent silent on this issue. What you will see is the vast majority of church fathers supported Romes primacy in theory but even some of them had a hard time dealing with it in practice.
I have read them. There would be no debate if reading the Fathers proved it that easily. Orthodox also believes in the primacy of the bishop of Rome (even still calling him Pope in their calendars for saints such as Gregory the Great!) and the Second Ecumenical Council said if something happens to Rome it goes to Constantinople. The primacy is understood differently.
@@lionheart5078 "I take divine institution to imply divine irreversibility." This, right here, is the key difference between the two positions. Orthodox also believe in the primacy which is why they still refer to Gregory the Great as Pope Gregory the Great in their calendar. Father Patrick chooses not to use that language as the terms of discussion but the Orthodox also believe in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome which the Second Ecumenical Council says if something happened to Rome would go to Constantinople if I remember correctly. I have read the Fathers. There would be no 1000 year debate if this proved papal infallibility so easily.
Eph 4:5 "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
"I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" Nicean Creed. One Head [ Christ] one body [the Church] what divide us? why division? , John 17:21 "that all of them may be one,"
"Two faiths" is what "divides" us, obviously. The Church of Christ cannot teach opposite dogmas, that is opposite absolute revealed truths. Either Roman Catholics are right, or Orthodox Catholics are, and this kind of interesting debate is here precisely to try and determine which one is true to Revelation and Apostolic Tradition, according to the "rule of faith" fleshed out by our Holy Fathers. "That all may be one" in spirit in the communion of the Church, which is the intent of the sacerdotal prayer of Christ, does not entail that there will be no heretics and schismatics (as Christ and St Paul also states will be the case). The quotations you give here are profoundly true, but the conclusions and applications you seem to draw from them are distorting their meaning. What is to be emphasized here is "one faith", which is the rock on which true unity is built. As this debate shows, only on one point of dogma (there are many others, including fundamental theological matters), we do not have "one faith". But, as St Paul says, there is only one faith taught by Christ and the Apostles. Therefore, if RCs are proven right, we Orthodox must repent and convert, but if not, you should repent and convert.
Great Debate! Wish the cross-examination was more fierce though (although maybe bad desire on my part). I felt like the cross examination should've gone on for longer. Erick I think is too gentle on some points. Either way wonderful debate, you've been killing it with content lately Matt!
I had exactly the same thought. You have to be more incisive sometimes. Trent Horn has the technic for debates like none, but it is very clear that Erick’s book is going to be a bomb.
Hello Matt! Just curious whatever happened to Erick potentially debating Ubi Petrus? I saw you had posted on one of his videos about 2 months ago that you would like to invite him on. I hope that happens! Father Patrick did a good job, but it would be nice to have a more in depth debate on how RC differs from Orthodoxy more specifically in tradition, Liturgy and theology and how these things are a stronger witness to who has true apostolic tradition rather than the interpretation/ implication of this or that authority the Pope may or may not have. I feel like the heart of the matter was never touched on in this debate. Church of the Eternal Logos (David Patrick Harry) would also be another excellent candidate to represent Orthodoxy on your channel! Thank you! God bless!
Ubi Petrus refused to debate.
@@noelyanes2455 proof?
@@Thedisciplemike ask Michael lofton or William albrecht. They have the screenshots.
"I take divine institution to imply divine irreversibility." This, right here, seems to me to be the biggest difference between the two positions.
If something is divine institution then it is irreversible. The church is a divine institution, and the gates of hell shall not prevail.
There were plenty of things that were divinely instituted that no longer apply or exist though. I.E. the dietary laws, many of the ancient churches, etc. To me this reeks of calvinistic tendencies. It’s wuite clear that divinely ordained people and things can lose their lampstand. Rome is no exception.
Yes, except that history is full of examples of corrupt and heretical popes in the RC church that would prove this, but in the negative sense: that the abuses and failures of an all-powerful pope indicates this person was not “divinely instituted”. It makes very clear the biblical concept of “strength in a number of wise counselors”
Absolutely.
@Vaggelis G. This, right here. Acts 15. If Peter was the prince of the apostles and had ultimate authority, why would James the Just be the presiding officer and how would the apostle Paul, chosen as one "abnormally formed" and who was not even one of the original 12 apostles, have the authority to "oppose Peter to his face" and then win over consensus of the Jerusalem council?
I totally agree!!
First James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so this explains his position however note that it is Peter who gives the council the direction and James affirms what Peter said, the council closed . Concerning Paul's rebuke to Peter, it as indicative that Peter is not to be feared when as a man he is in error , he must be corrected , and if he actually falls in doctrinal error he can be removed .
Second part of the debate begins at around 1:07:34 to skip the advertisement and other stuff.
As someone raised non-denominational and only recently attracted to the pre-reformation traditional branches of Christianity, I was very much looking forward to this. I have seen other debates and read some smattering of church history and I feel very neutral. One moment I find one argument convincing and the next another. In some ways I want to lean towards Catholicism and in others I want to lean towards Orthodoxy. My overarching compulsion however, is for a unified Church.
So initially Yberra had me wondering how Father Patrick could argue with all these quotes seemingly supporting the Roman See as St Peter's continuing authority but then Father Patrick said a couple of things that I don't think Yberra refuted satisfactorily.
1. Jesus gave the rest of the apostles the same mandate later on following His resurrection. So in my mind I can see how Peter's mandate may have been particularly strong for the days when the rest had lost their Messiah and did not yet know He was to be resurrected. Afterwards, they may have had as much faith as Peter and this prepared them. I don't know, but it is how God often works.
2. Father Patrick acknowledges the Roman See but quotes St Gregory as stating very clearly that Peter's authority was then shared by three bishoprics. I looked up these letters and sure enough he was very clear. Yberra never gave another interpretation of this so I can only conclude that church authority is not as straightforward as Roman Catholicism claims, except of course when it comes to the true singular (also in three) head of our church body - Christ Himself.
So as a Christian seeking communion in Christ, I am comfortable expecting the church to be a group of diverse and fallible humans overcoming our inclination towards disunity by reference and reverence of our Lord, Jesus Christ. With that in mind, I don't think many denominations are as wrong as it may appear, except where they fall into judging one another or proudly claiming greater claim to God's love than others.
I am still searching for the most appropriate fellowship of course, but this is where I find myself following this debate. Given that I hear more Orthodox preachers speak to this level of both "mere Christianity" and eccumenism, I feel like I am more at home attending Orthodox church for now at least. This doesn't mean I think the pope is completely illegitimate or anything like that, just that I wouldn't quite be willing to accept that he is as legitimate as a Catholic must. If anything I am less denominational minded than ever but I feel as though Orthodoxy.embraces this in the manner I mean it.
Which Gregory was that ? What letters ??
@@TheJason909 Pope Saint Gregory "The Great" of Rome:
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside" (Registrum Epistalorum, Book 7, Epistle 40)
Ive been undecided once now Im Catholic. If you're an inquisitive person and you ask questions and you dont just want to believe whatever you feel like, but rather needs answers grounded on authority, you will not stay Orthodox for very long.
If you have any questions, don’t be afraid to ask! You can ask on RUclips or on my Instagram @rajko.23
@@stdostoyevsky2931 That's what I thought, and I'm glad you offered that quote because it shows quite clearly - I believe - how Orthodox are reading their pre-existing ecclesial biases into the text.
Read the quote carefully, please. Gregory wasn't saying that there are three Bishops in Rome at all. Rather, he simply goes through and chronicles Peter's time in Alexandria and Antioch, whereat he established bishoprics, end ends in Rome. These three Sees in which Peter presided, therefore, are where the "three bishops" Gregory wrote of reside; not all in Rome.
The "See of one" is saying that one (Peter) established the three, in the same sense as we'd say we are the one Family of one (Abraham), for example.
It simply does not follow that Gregory the Great was denying Roman Primacy or Papal Supremacy by calling these three Sees blessed as they were established by Peter.
However, what /does/ follow from what you're asserting in this quote is that every Bishop ordained by Peter was the "Pope". If that be the case, why is there literally zero mention or attempt to identify only the Bishops whom Peter ordained in antiquity ?
Great debate! Love the mutual respect. Personally after having grappled with this for years, and not that my knowledge is exhaustive on the matter,far from it in fact. But I have listened to conversations like this by scholars and notable churchmen enough to come down on the Orthodox side. The modern understanding of the papacy is just a bridge too far. In the end we must choose.And so I have. Blessings to all🙏🏻🤲🏻
Your comment perplexes me. The first part appears like an acknowledgement that this controversy is a question of fact, True or False, but the latter part appears as if you are regarding it as "a judgment call", as if you were a judge in a court room trying to discern which side is misrepresenting the facts more. Do you think it is not possible to know for certain, such that rather than discover the truth one must "come down to a side"?
I forget how good Matt’s lighting looks until he has some guests with... other setups. lol
Very good observation haha
Mind that the host can use his source video, while the guests' comes in compressed.
@@paxcoder right, it’s the compression, not the fact that the guests are using laptop Webcams and no professional lighting 🤣
Good job Fr. Patrick
"Erick is asking the questions. if Fr Patrick is speaking too much, it is because Erick is letting him." Erick is a gentleman when he is debating and does not interrupt during Q&A. I used to love our Q&As, a lot of give and take, Erick would also be thoughtful and make a lot of concessions too.
You speak of Erick Ybarra as a gentleman on RUclips but then on your Facebook you said he uses lazy arguments which have been refuted and say he's "fundamentally dishonest" and comparable to a "slimy lawyer" using the same tired arguments.
How two faced. Is that how you treat your associates? No wonder R&T ended their relationship I understand now.
@@fiveadayproductions987 Well, it's good you bring that up. Erick, in the debate context, has been extremely professional. In Facebook, he has been the exact opposite, calling me names and etcetera. It is like two different people. The points he has brought up in this debate have been refuted, he acknowledged that he seen the refutations but promised he had a "secret book" which answered these objections. So, while his delivery and demeanor are superb, as I stated here, here is more beneath the surface. Your brought up all the negativity, I merely came here to clear my name. But, if you want to bring up dirt, it's not going to make me look bad, I am not a liar, nor have I backstabbed personal friends, nor have made up crimes (which specific "uncharitable" act got me kicked from R&T? notice how that never gets cited?) like the R&T crew has. Again, I did not come here to bring any of this up, simply to clear my name to Mr. Fradd, but if R&T cult members like you are going to defame me and not try understand what I have to say, all I can say is be your own man and follow no one.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology "Cult Members" hahahaha that's rich so rich Craig. You know exactly what you were doing you'd be a good propagandist.
Your name wasn't even bought up during the debate yet you had to interject some lazy old cannard implying question feeding, and have to play victim status once again and "defend your honour" when Erick didn't even bring you up.
You have to keep bringing up old tales to justify the way you've spoken and the things you've implied about Erick.
@@fiveadayproductions987 If it so pleases you to attack me instead of speaking to me personally, being that you obviously follow and misquote may Facebook, then that's on you. I tried explaining myself and being positive. If you have your concerns, bring it up to me. I'm not looking to offend you (or even Erick in all honesty), but if I fail in communicating myself, then accept my apologies. If you have concerns about the "tacit" stuff I say, then please take it up with me.
Really excellent debate! I was actually very impressed by Erick, feel like he held a slight edge over Fr.Patrick. But a truly beautiful talk all round
What's both missing in the Catholic and Orthodox world is their respective monarchs. The Christian monarchy played a huge role in the development of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Example is the Holy Roman emperor served as a sort of check and balance to the Papacy. As was the Byzantine emperor and later the Czar to Orthodoxy. After World war 1 the Habsburg and Czar were overthrown. Thus leaving both Christan traditions at the mercy of liberalism and socialism.
The main difference is in Orthodox if you want to make changes you have to discuss it with all important bishop representative. Therefore it stays rather true to its old form.
I've considered this as well. The secular authorities do end up playing a checks-and-balances role in the first millennium. Rome's solution was to collapse secular and ecclesial authority into the papacy, effectively. The Eastern Patriarchates chose to keep the principal of "symphony" between Church and State as the ideal, even if it failed to keep that balance at times. In reality, Rome's idea of making the Pope the Pontifex Maximus isn't able to be effective in a godless world that rejects Christianity. He cannot coerce secular rulers or threaten excommunication because they literally don't care what he says.
Throughout Church history, You have never seen a Catholic Pope bow down to any authority outside the Church even at the hands of a degenerate Pope, or on the verge of Collapse against the Pagans, the Protestants, or the Atheists. However, you can see that an Orthodox bishop bows down to a Monarch or a secular government and be under his rule.
No, In the west, the Frankish Kings tried so often to control the Pope but the Prince of the Apostles have always agitated to be free, The Bishops of the East were more subordinate to the Eastern Roman Emperor. The Church can cooperate with the world but it cannot be subjugated by stately powers.
Nice tee, Matt 👏👏👏
Ybarra did a great job, but I think that Rome’s position is much harder to argue because there’s so much more involved with their ecclesiology whereas EO can comfortably play defense.
Yes because we have the original doctrine and dispensation of the church and aren’t arguing a position of supremacy stemming from the 1800’s
@@DysmasTheGoodThief The only issue is, you’re all different. There’s not so much “we” as there is “this EO tradition and that EO tradition”
@@tonywallens217 Orthodoxies. ;)
@@tonywallens217 But that is not actually a problem. Rome's insistence on uniformity begat Protestantism, and no, you don't get to disown that child. There are, accordingly, tens of thousands of parts of the Western church, while there is a handful of Eastern churches. The Western branch failed at achieving unity, insofar as we can say that 30,000 different branches is a failure.
@@tonywallens217autocephalous churches? They are in Eucharistic communion
"And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church."
Mar Abdisho of Soba,
(Memra 9; Risha 8).
From the Assyrian Church
14th-century canonist who was the last prominent theologian before the Mongol invasion
Assyrians aren’t in communion. So 🤷♂️
Nobody is listening to them
@@DysmasTheGoodThief
the proofs of primacy is to be found in these churches because their schism was no due to the refuse of Papal Primacy...
Why do you keep quoting Heretics to prove your point? It just makes your own argument in line with Heretics, by default making you a Heretic
Hey sir, do you have discord or a website or smth. I saw you on other videos as well we would love to learn from you. God bless
1:14:37 Do you think the See of Constantinople was made equal to Rome's universal petrine perogatives? If so, who testifies to that?
Would be good to have a listing of every question asked to index this debate.
Not sure how I feel about this debate. Personally Erick is a charismatic speaker which makes it easy and relatable to understand but in all due honesty I think he doesn't go far enough to prove his point. Which is why I don't side with him but I do respect him for engaging in this complex aspect of Theology. In all honesty it was a good debate. No clear winner in my opinion. I can't be bias here.
I look forward to the day of Christ’s return. When everyone will bend the knee and there will be one head.
If I were, as a nominally confessional Lutheran wanting to convert to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy but not knowing which, to get to know that I have only a few more weeks to live, what should I do? I wouldn't have enough time to read the 25-35 books on the papacy as mentioned by Erick Ybarra a couple of times, maybe not even only one book (Erick's?) besides the Bible considering the pains I might have in such a scenario. And knowing that my eternal salvation might depend on which of the two I choose is quite hard to stomach.
Why wait till death bed? Are you afraid to go to the nearest Orthodox Church to see for yourself what's it like? You'll be amazed how many westerners had begun their conversion by just accidentally going to the Vespers or Liturgy. Especially, in recent times. Wonder why? Try it.
First of all pray pray pray and ask for guidance.
I always put it like this:
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ didn't expect us to be Church Scholars and throughout the ages the True Fullness of the Church is to be known by the Four Marks. One (Unity), Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic (Apostolicity). And I think an honest analysis of those four marks through history lead quite clearly to the Catholic Church. You either stay with the wounded Bride of Christ fight for Holy Mother Church or flee to easier more convenient options. I will take the Catholic Church any day even with its many practical flaws.
Ask yourself which Church throughout history fulfilled the role of spreading the Gospel to all the nations as predicted? Missionary work, hospitals, charities, fighting off Islamic expansion in Europe, the Reconquista. At every major point in Christian History the Roman See has always been at the forefront and this is providential. There's so much more I can say but I don't like discussing this in comments. People can pretend it's purely an intellectual discussion but it's so much more.
Begome sedevacantist
A problem is also that it wouldn't be enough to say that the Roman Catholic Church has the stronger case and convert to it. One has to believe that it is the one true church - the level of certainty would have to be at least around 90 percent, to the extent that one quantify this (at least I am doing it metaphorically). I do not know whether the Eastern Orthodox church has a conversion creed similar to RC where one says that one believes everything it teaches. If one is not required to do that, but merely to hold to teachings which both churches hold to, it would be easier to become Eastern Orthodox if one after years of wondering and being devoid of sacraments still cannot come to a conclusion.
Within obedience and unity of the Church, you will find Orthodox Rites in complete communion.
If your reluctance is based on the manner of celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, the Byzantine Rite, the Maronite, Syriac are all valid options. There are 24 in all. All in union with the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.
The apostolic line remains intact with no schism among all branches of the Latin Rite churches, which fulfills Christ’s exhortation to be one, be a light to all people, to go forth and serve all nations. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, everywhere in the world, following the seven corporal works of mercy.
Pray for wisdom, courage, discernment, understanding and study. Then follow your conscience. A scary leap when it’s your immortal soul on the line, so a quick prayer for you that you find the Truth.
I will say one more thing. It probably is obvious that I’m a Latin Catholic. 🙂 Since the entire Christian Church is made of of flawed and sinful people, I would make a suggestion to help you decide, either way. Don’t judge either the Orthodox Churches or the Latin Church by their sinners, but by their saints. I know where my heart rests, but nobody can make that decision for you. Perhaps in studying the great saints, you can decide which resound deeply with your view of God and salvation.
I recently converted from being a lifelong Greek Orthodox to Catholic. For me the papacy is clearly in the bible but that doesn't mean we always agree with what the Pope says (I see non-Catholics always using that as a debate point). I think more attention should be put on how the Orthodox Church can't cement a unified position on docterine, their opposition to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, bizarre things like being able to remarry 3 times (where does the Bible or Church Fathers teach that?) and a few other issues. I believe Eastern Catholics can play a vital role in the unification of at least some of the Orthodox Churches possibly returning to the Catholic Church. I believe the Orthodox schism that is happening will lead to this. Great debataing by both men. People can learn a lot from both.
Welcome home brother, brave decision amidst the chaos in the Church.
@Prasanth Thomas Yes, I should have worded it better to make that as part of the point. Origional Sin is biblical and I the reasons provided to me on why its opposed in the Orthodox Church (while I was Greek Orthodox) was very weak and that among a few other weak answers lead to me deciding to search for answers and go to Catholic teachings.
@@hughmungus9739 Thank you brother. I admit it took me a while to open my eyes but the Holy Spirit guided me home. I put up some resistance because of some Vatican issues but through prayer I woke up and realised what being a Catholic meant. I am now part of the Church our Lord left for us. And all the evil within the Church was expected as per the words of our Lord so that only helped clarify to me being Catholic was the right thing.
@Dusun Prince From your lips to God's ears brother.
@zedd I think there has been an exchange happening for a while. In my parish there is are two others who recently joined from the Greek Orthodox Church and I know some are converting to the Eastern Catholic Church but at the same time I have seen due to scandals etc in the Catholic Church particulary in the US some Catholics have become Orthodox. Pray for guidance, take your time with your decision, see past the wrongs of clergy and focus on what is the true teachings of the Gospel. For 11 centuries the Orthodox Church was part of the Catholic Church, many Orthodox speak of differences but ignore the fact they were one with the Catholic Church and were told to leave which was all very, very sad. There is many wonderful things to experiance being Orthodox but there is many downsides and errors. I don't know if you have explored Eastern Catholic Churches or have access to one but that might be worth checking out. Either way I wish you the best and whatever decision you take I pray its one that can bring you that relationship with faith you are craving. I say that as you would not be considering leaving Catholicism otherwise. God bless you.
Erick provided all the historical evidence, Fr Patrick mostly just objected: "Well if the RC position is true, such and such might happen."
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine The reason is because he had acted childish and immature and collaborated with Jay who attacked Erick's character calling him "Candy Ybarra" and then Ubi when offered to come on to Reason & Theology arrogantly asked for $500. Nobody is owed a debate yet alone someone who acts in such a manner. Many of Erick's older articles address some of Ubi's arguements. Tell him to come out of hiding from a robot voice if he's going to personally target people who are willing to show their face/name.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine Erick isn't hiding as I've said, people who are disrespectful and attack you personally aren't owed a platform for debate to stroke their egos. Ubi & Co. should publicly repent and apologise for their behaviour and then perhaps a debate can be organised. Crazy how online Orthodoxy has such a toxic base that treats these laymen like revered cult leaders. Thankfully the real life Orthodox I meet are much more charitable.
In UbiPetrus' video "why Catholicism is wrong on Church History" at the very end UbiPetrus invites Erick to a debate and even goes so far as to promise Erick extra time and extra help of he so desired.
@@muscularcatholicism Erick replied to the video in the comments and stated that his response would be in his book and that UbiPetrus would have to refute that to make Erick reconsider his position. Sadly a debate doesn't seem to be happening.
Yeah, the disgusting lack of charity of Ubi towards Erick. That's the reason.
Multiple times Erick said he is open if Uni is going to be honest and charitable.
That's all.
1:30:20 to 1:3950 has some really good clash. Fr gets specific on what he’s need to convince him and Erik gives a good response. Fr doesn’t get to give a full answer to him because the bell gets him, but it’s a good exchange.
Always great to see how kind and gentle Catholics are to other christian brothers and sisters in Christ. From the Orthodox side it is mostly hypocritical, basically the hate against the Catholic Church always overcome them. I am proud to be 🇻🇦🙋🏻♂️❤.
Cope harder schismatic
@@DysmasTheGoodThief ruclips.net/video/xl3pD4l0K5U/видео.html "The Jewish Roots of the Papacy - Dr. Brant Pitre - Deep in History" 🤣
Such Massive Cope lol
110k subscribers, 23k views, 1.1k likes, and 1.5k comments - I really wonder how many watched the video and genuinely thought Fr Patrick won but didn’t comment and how many people didn’t watch the video but just picked 1 of the 2 winner options for the poll.
Nice shirt Matt!
Good work by both! Love Eric love being Catholic!
Can I have your permission to translate this video to Indonesian language and upload it on my channel? This will help many people who do not understand English.
Sure. Just make it known that you are the translator and that we haven't reviewed the translation for accuracy.
@@PintsWithAquinas Sure Brother. Thank you, I translate many videos of CP, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and some others. I make it known to everyone that I am the translator. Thanks again and God bless you!
@@PRAEDICATORVERITATIS could you translate this video to laymen’s terms in English?
@@junelledembroski9183 if I do that, that will be an interpretation or paraphrasing, not a translation. I don't think many people agree with that. Besides, I'm focusing on helping Indonesian people, the largest Muslim community in the world, and that work already takes so much time. To give you an illustration: to translate a 30 minutes video, I need about 8 hours work. So, I think I cannot do that. I apologise. God bless you.
@@PRAEDICATORVERITATIS awww.
I'm not normally one to comment on these videos but as an existing Catholic, I have to say Fr.Patrick had won me over in this one.
i dont think so. Both seem like doesnt answer any problem since both of them are true and backed up by apostolic tradition itself. What Erick brought up in his opening statements clearly defines what papal supremacy is. But what Fr. Patrick also brought up is also a concrete proofs of collegiality of church which means, instead of believing that there was already one system that favored and suggested by each party (catholic with its papal supremacy, and orthodox with its bishop collegiality) from the beginning, it comes to clarity that actually there were 2 systems that was favored sporadically in entire universal church. So to say orthodox is true in this sense is not entirely true, and the same goes to catholic.
@@theosteven3362 which one has the authority of Rome? The keys are in Rome and that's where every church should access and if not they miss out.
@@koppite9600 well yeah. But thats not my point. My pont was both parties' claim has historical verificatiom as they have presented in this debate. It is ignorant to neglect all of them.
@@theosteven3362 Eric takes statements of the fathers out of context, maybe you didn't follow when Father Ramsey read some of the quotes in CONTEXT. The primacy of Rome was never an infallible authority over ALL bishops as us stated in Vatican 1. If church tradition had ALWAYS been that Rome was infallible and could not fall or err why in the world would the early church EVER have half councils?! Why wouldnt they just go ask Rome?
@@marydetray67761."read some of the quotes in CONTEXT", i think erick did that and for me father ramsey didnt follow up anything.
2. " If church tradition had ALWAYS been that Rome was infallible and could not fall or err why in the world would the early church EVER have half councils?! Why wouldnt they just go ask Rome?" That when u either dont know what u are talking about OR you misunderstood what papal infallibility means. CATHOLIC EVEN STILL HAD 2ND VATICAN COUNCIL! Why did catholic do that right? according to your logic that must be an odd thing, do they believe what they believe? those question should be raised on your head if you really think thoroughly with your logic. But, to make it simple, you simply misunderstood it.
Infallibility can take form on 2 kinds of event, which is to SETTLE DISPUTE OVER A COUNCIL, AND TO PROMULGATE DOCTRINE OF FAITH WITHOUT COUNCIL PRIORLY.
We had ECUMENICAL COUNCILS because the very nature of those events were to settle dispute surrounding matters of faith. When the council fails then papal office steps forward to exercise the authority JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON IN 451. You wont expect the 2nd form (to promulgate without council priorly) if the first one HAD OCCURED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Thats why Church had 7 ecumenical councils.
You can learn more about this infallibility of papal office on this: www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope-is-infallibility-a-one-man-council.php
It is rare to see an Eastern Orthodox participate in an debate. Usually its in the west. Protestant vs Protestant or Protestant vs catholic.
I think its because a lot of people are returning to the old churches and they want to know which one is most correct.
@@Traditional_American that's my guess as well
Our Orthodox priests and scholars are happy to debate and talk about Orthodoxy, but nobody invites them to.
@@corneliuschristian6289 because they’d win
@@icxcnika2037 😂 give me a break
Erick cool as always!
Hope to see a bit more on this in R and T.
ruclips.net/video/Jl72RdAZ-3s/видео.html
@@ReasonandTheology Hey Michael what were your thoughts on the debate?
@@hughmungus9739 I think Fr. Patrick went too long with his answers during Erick's cross ex and also was rebutting Erick during his own cross ex, which is when you ask questions only. This took away from getting to the bottom of the issues raised in the intro and rebuttal. But I hope we will get to them in the follow up show.
@@ReasonandTheology Yeah that's a reasonable analysis. I wish Erick pushed certain points more during the cross examination and was willing to cut in more. Otherwise excellent performance from Erick as always. Some interesting points made in the comments. Anyway look forward to the post debate show next week!
Both sides have evidence from early saints and examples from early dialogues and councils. So I’m still lost. I’m gonna have to watch this a few times more and do more research. Right now I don’t know who is right all I know is I’m wrong, being in the middle.
Ultimately it’s very simple. Simply trust the words of Jesus, “you are Peter...” and the plain interpretation given to them by notable fathers of the early Church. Don’t complicate the issue unnecessarily. If you obfuscate this issue what’s there to stop you doing so for others?
I felt the same way when I was discerning between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. Each side can produce their sources, all of which seem to cancel each other out. After ~1000 years of back and forth, it would seem that we're at a stalemate in this regard.
And so I shifted gears and asked, "Which side better exemplifies church unity today ? Pragmatically, which ecclesiology has the ability to unify the church ??"
That, plus when I considered the overall demeanor of Orthodox online, and how it is the Catholics who continually pray for church unity in the liturgy, the answer became clear to me...
The Orthodox Church speaks for itself. As our Lord said “You will know them by their fruits”
@@starcityoldy so are you suggesting whoever is the larger charitable organization wins?
@@jakeracick2301 Funny you mention this on the Sunday of the Pharisee and Publican.
You’re borderline sounding like a Pharisee.
Money has nothing to do with it, and how much you donate. It’s the fruits you leave behind, and the fruits of Rome are rotten.
It is good to serve one another in Jesus.
So I'm reading church history right now and stumbeled upon Pope Agapetus I who was pope 535-536.
he went to Constantinople plead against imperial invasion of Italy.
Whats really interesting is that he deposed the patriarch of Constantinople and conseecrated a successor.
Is this not a perfect example of the authority of the Pope over what is according to Fr. Patrick a see with equal authority?
And is this not an example of a Pope going somewhere to consecrate bishops like Fr. Patrick was asking for?
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine Did they support?
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine Thank you brother. Do you know if something of this sort occurred with the patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem or Alexandria by the Patriarch of Constantinople before the schism occurred? I thought I heard something of that nature at one time?
I have a counter example. Pope Honorius I. A showing example of a pope being far from infallible
@@Ilovemarvelll My comment had nothing to do with infallibility.
Apart from that Honorius did not err in his magisterium but only potentionally as a private thologian (meaning he didn't teach any error as morally binding).
That at least is my understanding but I'd have to do more research to speak on this confidently.
@@magikarp2063 he was excommunicated from his own church
Both very good debaters. However Fr. Patrick lost (in my eyes) when he started to try to claim the "universal bishop" quote, when put in to application, effectively means there's only one bishop though it may not appear the case. Very unconvincing and a stretch.
I thought it worked within his ecclesiological framework
I will need to consult the oracle on who won this debate
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese ?
Ive seen Fr Patrick in a couple videos. (As far as i know) it seems that he memorizes all his material (he doesnt even take notes during his opponets speaking). The mans memory/mind is beast mode
Nice shirt Matt where can i grab one?
I think it's apparent that Fr. Patrick won the debate
What did you think to be his strongest points?
A wonderful examination of the Papacy and its prerogatives in light of Apostolic tradition! Both sides did well.
For the claim that equal power resides in Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch (I hope I got the cities right) I just got one question; when did the keys given to Peter multiply?
Well you said it yourself. It’s “keys” not “key”
Nothing like some good Lincoln-Douglas Debate
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese based
Eric Ybarra did great. I am even more convinced of the Catholic faith than I was before watching this debate.
Propaganda wrapped in an opinion.
@@CyprusHot You literally just commented an opinion when you posted "Orthodoxy Prevails! Great Debate with facts" on this exact same video lol.
And now you're accusing someone of propaganda and opinion when you literally just stated your own opinion.
Hypocrisy of the highest order. Why am I not surprised.
@@flisom Erick has phenomenal knowledge and his side is correct, I have no doubt about my position, but I wouldn’t say he is well versed in debates. If he were, things would be much more emphatic. Trent Horn, for example, seems to a natural in debates. Erick had to be more (respectfully) incisive in a lot of parts of the debate but he wasn’t. Fr Patrick is a gentleman too. As far as content goes, yeah, Erick presented things that I didn’t know before. But still I think he is not a natural in debates.
@@CyprusHot You literally just accused someone of propaganda for stating their opinion on the debate... While also stating your own opinion... What in this doesn't make sense to you. You should've waited longer and written a lengthier response then. I never said anybody was spreading propaganda for sharing their opinions, that was you. I was saying it's hypocritical to call someone out for stating an opinion while doing the exact same thing.
@@hughmungus9739 it’s not hypocritical because I have written more since my last message which was barely 12 hours ago.
Just say you are biased. I can write what I want. Thanks !
If papal infallibility existed in apostolic times, then there would be no need for councils.
Do you think calling a council triggered the bishops to truth? Councils get hot too.
What happens when a coucil gets hot?
hi Steve,of course your right in regards listening to the opposing side so as to lovingly correct them. In my case I would just get worked up and frustrated because of my mental health issues. So I respond in as loving a way that I can. I just tell the historical truth that Jesus God himself founded one Church on the infallible Rock of Peter two millennia ago. In 5th century two movements broke from Rome thereby making themselves cults. They are the Oriental Orthodox cult not church,(small c),and the Assyrian cult not church,(small c),of the East. It’s about time we told the painful truth in Catholic Christian love. Protestantism is man made and not of God. Of course there are many protestants who are better Catholic’s than Catholic’s. Jesus founded one Church where salvation is gained on one’s death bed and not before. When a person enters Purgatory he or she is Catholic! God bless. Praise Jesus and Mary always!!!
Edit: I was completely turned around! Problem solved and thank you!
Can someone explain to me Erick's position? It really sounded like he supported Catholics position. Even his closing statement. Then he would just throw in something here and there against it. I'm soooooo confused
@Based Byzantine gotcha! I was so confused. I thought it was the other way around and listening to their arguments was confusing.
I'll have to restart now🤦🤣
@Based Byzantine thank you!
Fr Patrick's inference to 'New Rome' is the same Russian Orthodox uses to strengthen their 'new Constantinople' argument for Moscow. There is no apostolic basis for that, but an evolution of ideas. Because Paul and Peter were responsible for the string of early churches, and their last domicile was Rome where the successors of Peter continued, all the other churches by extension and over time in communion with that See remain both under their jurisdiction and their bishops share in the Petrine See. Only when some churches broke away and formed the Orthodox branches did these bishops sever themselves and then sought to formulate their own sees as having apostolic origins. This is untrue when you read Acts, because all the churches in Jerusalem or elsewhere did defer to Peter.
A final observation is that many new Orthodox priests, bishops, theologians and apologists nowadays tend to have their own POV or interpretation or understanding of these canons and such, apart from the specifics of Orthodox theology. There is a clearer fragmentation especially between the Greek speaking (eg monks of Mt Athos) and the English-speaking, and a very wide spectrum of sentiments towards Catholics and dialogue with the Catholic Church. Some of their remarks tend to vilify and disparage, perhaps stemming from deep prejudice of sorts. How many Orthodox commentators have taken a genuinely ecumenical (small 'E') remains few.
As a Catholic, are you really accusing Orthodoxy of "an evolution of ideas"? lol
@@markmartinez7715 The ideas referred to are those inventions related to referring to Constantinople and then Moscow as 'new' Rome, the right of Emperors over the appointment of their sees, to summon councils, etc. Orthodoxy has many other of their own (quite distinctive) innovations eg. Hesychasm, Autocephaly of their churches.
Honestly fam, I really wish this wasn't a point of conflict right now, considering what kind of world we live in.
Isn't spiritual unity in Christ the only way the world's going to get any better? What could possibly be more important in these times?
@@bugbacktoone True, debates like this are good, even if I have heavy doubts thag the schism is going to be resolved anytime soon. But there is also a lot of vitriol involved at times, and that's really unfortunate and unproductive
@@volusian95 The great irony is that vitriol is usually produced by a lack of respectful discussion. Ket us never tire of communicating on the nost important things. It's the temperal stuff that matters far less.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese I'm not pretending that the issue at hand doesn't matter, only pointing out the tragic nature of bad relations between Catholics and Orthodox while anti-religious secular garbage, Islam, and new age "spirituality" encroach around us
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Therein lies the Essence vs. Energies argument. Catholics trying to the best of their ability to understand God doesn't entail any less of a mystic tradition, nor has it "created militant atheism". On the contrary, we would say that it's the Palamist conception of God which leads there, as it renders Him an unknowable duality.
“The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world.” (Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology p.133)
So I don’t understand how it can be accepted the bishop of Rome is the centre of unity for bishops (those in communion with him are in Jesus’s church) that’s the whole point of unity and then think the church exists away from the bishop of Rome. @26:58 minutes
I missed it live! 😔
Commenting while watching....I dunno if Erick will get to it but
Fr Patrick seems to start with a bold claim, that we should expect to see this everywhere with maybe some exceptions if it were Apostolic in origin. However, I don't see why. The Trinity is undoubtedly a true exposition/development of Doctrine, yet look how widespread the Arian heresy became. Indeed, until a thing is formally defined, it should not be surprising to see fairly widespread error or confusion (hence the need for formal definitions), which just goes to show the importance of an authority that can legitimately do such a thing in the first place.
Edit...I think I have a similar issue with his "credulous" comment. When we look at how often it appears eastern sees fell to what is now agreed to be error, and consider the crises in the church, and compare that to Rome's pristine and spotless, perfect record of orthodoxy in this same period, then it is not so strange that, (wrongly) believing the impossible to have happened, the bishops of the other sees tried to do what they could with what they had. Father Patrick readily agrees that Rome is the see of final dispute, where issues are settled. So, then, when it disagrees with other sees, you can just say it's not Rome anymore?! It can just fall into error?! Then what's the point? You can just change the see of final dispute if it disagrees! Imagine how awful that would have been if it had happened during some other of the crises. The Filioque issue is, I believe, mostly an issue of translation. This disunity has gone on for so long...may we all pray for unity!
Your example of the Trinity does not hold up. Trinitarianism won out against Arianism precisely because it _was_ Apostolic in origin, not the word "Trinity" itself, but the teaching. Arianism was so powerful because it used Scripture in a very persuasive way to deceive many, but its weak point was that it wasn't Apostolic in nature, and therefore had not the foundation to endure.
The Papal claims are the same in that they employ Scripture and quotes from the saints in a powerful way to deceive many, but its weakness is that it isn't Apostolic in nature. If it were Apostolic in nature, then we should expect to find Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Vatican I claim, unambiguosly from the times of the Apostles and forward, but we don't. Not even RC apologists will make that claim. Instead, what we hear is that it, the Papal claims, existed in seed form and grew and was revealed over time. This is why Erick and other RC apologists have to resort to quotes of Scripture and individual saints in order to establish the doctrine rather than appealing to what the Church teaches in consensus such as the Ecumenical Councils. This is also why Rome had to set itself against the authority of Ecumenical Councils, because her claims were not upheld by them in the first thousand years.
The Christian East has rightly rejected as untenable the Papal claims, because something as vital to the Church's unity would have been clear from the start, or at the very least there would have been an Ecumenical Council called to definitively state it in the earliest centuries due to its overwhelming importance. But that's not what we find. Instead, we find Bishops assembled who clearly believed Rome was the first See due to it being in the capital city of the Empire (cf. 2nd & 4th Ecumenical Councils), and that they, the Bishops, had authority to declare and anathematize the Bishop of Rome as a heretic (cf. The 6th Ecumenical Council). And all this _before_ the Great Schism.
@@justanotherlikeyou
This is circular reasoning in that it assumes precisely the point at issue, i.e. the apostolic origin of the papacy. My point with Arianism was that it (and this is just one example) held large sway among the bishops, it would seem even over a majority, despite being error. Therefore, we need not assume that we would necessarily see the correct, apostolic teaching taught everywhere with only a few exceptions...such error could be so very widespread. Indeed, the world had groaned and found itself Arian. Of course, it did not win out because, like all heresies, it was not true. It was not Apostolic in origin. It was not the one true Faith.
Doctrine goes through development, in which that which is implicit becomes explicit. Let's look at the Trinity. Indeed, the word and the formal definition is not found in Scripture, though the idea is there. This is what is meant by "seed" or "seed form" or what have you.
The Church didn't immediately just define all things necessary for believing the true Faith as soon as it was given legal status. Oftentimes the need to define something important to the Faith was found when it was being denied by some major party. If they didn't just immediately define everything important to the faith, then there is no need to assume they'd do so for this particular doctrine, especially considering the political situation within the Church, and the general acquiescence already given consistently to the See, with Scripture already giving witness.
Regarding the historical points, Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council confirmed the condemnation of Honorius not based on teaching error (let alone formally) but on "imprudent economy of silence." Indeed I fail to see the issue with all the bishops, including the pope, condemning a deceased pope (who no longer holds the authority of the office) in such matters as his agreeing in a letter against giving too much concern to a certain error. On the other councils I am not sure what issue you take up without a specific quote. I have indeed gone and tried to skim through them and, though I find much respect for the office of Peter, and indeed confirmation of his predecessors being respected as Peter, I did not really see the issue you seem to lay out.
Peace and God bless.
Actually there was a local schism in Rome itself in 996 AD. The Frankish king invaded Rome and installed his 24 year old nephew Bruno, as Pope. Bruno took the name Gregory V. The Orthodox people of Rome didn't accept this uncanonical appointment and instead held elections and voted for Giovanni Filagato to be Pope, who took the name John Philagathus. But Bruno had John arrested, beaten up, blinded and mamed, and locked him in a dungeon where he died in 1014 AD.
The four Eastern Patriarchates recognized John Philagathus as the real Pope, and never recognized Bruno or any of his successors. Since the Orthodox were too afraid to install a successor to John Philagathus in 1014, fearing any successor would suffer the same brutal consequences, they suggestes for all Orthodox bishops in the West to temporarily commemorate the Archbishop of Achris (today's Ohrid in North Macedonia) as their temporarily Pope and Patriarch.
So the schism really happened in 996 AD not 1054 AD. The reason why the Frankish Pope sent legates to Constantinople in 1054 was to obtain recognition for the Frankish Papacy and to end the already-existing schism. But because the Greeks viewed the Frankish legates as schismatics and didnt recognise their Pope as valid, the legates got angry and hurled their well-known Papal Bull in which they excommunicated the entire East. So in the Western eyes they view the schism as having taken place in 1054, but in the Eastern eyes the Frankish papacy was already schismatic since 996 AD.
Patriarch Michael Cerularius and Patriarch Dionysius of Antioch both explain that it wasn't Pope Victor II of Rome [1055-1057] who was the first Pope to never enter the diptychs of the Orthodox Church, but that both in Constantinople as well as in Antioch the commemoration of the Pope had disappeared from the diptychs over 45 years prior to that time. This makes perfect sense, because the last truly Orthodox Pope of Rome is John Filagato, whom the Franks call an anti-pope. He was blinded and maimed by the Franks and thrown in a dungeon, where he died around 1014 AD. While he was in prison, the Franks enthroned the first Franko-Germanic "Pope", the 24 year old Bruno who took the name "Gregory V." It is thus Bruno (Gregory) whom we Orthodox consider the anti-pope, and from that day until now only anti-popes occupy the throne. Meanwhile the Orthodox bishops in Italy and the West were advised to commemorate the Metropolitan of Achris (Ochrid in the Balkans) in the place they would normally commemorate the Pope. The Metropolitans of Achris were Latin-speaking (Aromanians-Vlachs) and thus continued to represent whatever part of the Latin nation remained within the Orthodox Church. Today this place seems to be held by the Orthodox Patriarch of Romania.
Certianly makes things look suspect loool.
@@muscularcatholicism
Anyone who's stuided church history will tell you what I wrote above. To start off with read the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for "Antipope John XVI". Of course the Papists call him an antipope, but for us he was the real pope while Gregory V was the antipope. But you can read between the lines:
www.newadvent.org/cathen/08428a.htm
Another source is the letter of Patriarch Peter III of Antioch to "Patriarch Dominic of Grado", which can be found in Patrologia Graeca 120, col. 760.
@@deusimperator no you’re not
Is that ahistorical narration something you brewed back in your hooch? The Orthodox were too scared to usurp the chair of Peter??? Well yeah they should be. It is not up to them to choose the Bishop of Rome, the Roman clergy elected the bishop of Rome. You do not have any say in the choice. Would you like the bishops of Spain to appoint your patriarch for you? Is that acceptable to you?
No one:
EO: the Franks!
If one is considering converting to Orthodoxy which church do they go to? Russian, Greek, Coptic, American, Anchorite, Antiochian, Indian, Syriac, Romanian?
@@alwayshine3995 Who are the Dimon brothers
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Thank you!
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Can you recommended any unbiased church history books? I wish I could see a blueprint of the beginning of church history till now. My biggest hesitation towards orthodox is availability. We move like every two years , some towns have slim pickings!
@@alwayshine3995 it's the same chuche. Sedevacantism is a heresy
@@rexchiliae sorry I didn't write that.. My ex bf wrote it. I deleted.
Fr. Patrick's argument at the 02:09:00 mark is the strongest in my opinion
God is the Truth, you are missing the point. Rome represents the Truth, bears IT like a vessel. Orthodox rejected the Truth out of its pride cutting itself from the flow of the Living Water of Christ, and being barren and self righteous is shamelessly trying to substitute the Presence of God with the knowledge of doctrines and rules and descriptions of how it should be. Satan is a legalist. No matter how many arguments Orthodox Church names to prove her right, it doesn’t bring Christ into into her, she cut itself from. The opposite, this arrogance further and further digs orthodoxy in self righteousness. You can’t argue and demand your right for Christ to flow in you, you can only repent and beg to be planted back onto the Living tree.
Yup, the matter of text interpretation would never be solved because of the limits of epistemology. If it was revealed in actions it wouldn't be a debate.
I must agree. Very strong argument.
Lack of obedience by the Orthodox church of the Catholic pope does not justify the Father's arguments. Peter was in Rome, not Constantinople
Stfu heretic.And it doesn't matter where Peter was.Our church is the truth one
I'm not a huge fan of father Ybarra's short quotes. A lot of the ones from Protestant and Orthodox theologians and historians seem like they could easily support or deny his claim depending on the context.
Much nicer thumbnail 👌
Lots of love for and respect to Fr. Patrick, but good grief, he needs to keep his answers brief and questions to the point.
Human beings are not infallible, and Peter himself was fallable. Paul rebuked Peter, see Galatians Ch. 3. The Catholic priest presents a composition, not Biblical evidence.
"Human beings are not infallible, and the Bible was written by human beings, so the Bible is not infallible."
Protestant here, not sure which church I will join when I leave it...
1:52:20 "The UN Security Council..."
LOLz!!!
If Jesus said to Peter what you tie on earth will be tied on heaven ... why the sacred easter light comes in the orthodox easter and not in the roman easter? If the Pope has authority over the whole church and that authority was granted by the Lord, why the Lord don't give His sacred Light on the roman easter date? Please explain that.
There are plenty of alleged miracles in the Catholic Church just as there are in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't think miracles can prove which church is correct.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 yes, indeed, but this one is a major one and it may be a strong message as to which is the Church that is faithful.
It could be as you say (positive logics: the Light signalling the presence) or it could be that the Lord is giving His sacred Light on the side that needs it more (negative logics: the Light signalling the lack) or it could have nothing to do with the issue...
@@elederiruzkin8835 Me thinks is a message and a call for unity on something that seems easy, it would be a great start if Peter the roman changes back the liturgical calendar for to join in easter with the east. I think Jesus wants that. I feel strongly that it would be an impressive message and a step for unity. The light is waiting. 2025 would be an opportunity.
@@JC-lk1mz Here's what Jesus wants from His disciples:
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35).
How can the “Orthodox Church” be the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” when it is not united even within itself, precluding it from being “one”? The Greek and Russian sects are in schism and not in full communion... Is it the “Two, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches” now?
Although Saddening. Schisms like such are not new, & normally resolve over time. It occurred numerous times even pre-schism West & East. Patriarch's Schism'd with Patriarch's.
For example, St. John Chrysostom. He accepted as an authority & recognized men who wasn't currently in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop - another person not in communion with Rome. John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome, due to present schisms at the time.
@@westernriteorthodox8719 So which is the one true church, Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox? Because one of them must be, to hold the mantle of being the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, unless both are not the one church. And they can’t both be, because then the one church wouldn’t be united. After looking into the history of the church, it seems that it is just a disagreement between patriarchs fighting over scraps of power - schismatic churches, neither of which are the one true church. No offence to any Orthodox brothers, but I don’t see any valid way for the so-called “Eastern Orthodox Church” to be reconciled as “One” - and so how much less can it be the “One True Church” if it is divided?
I'm not an expert but I think both the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches hold to the same faith, but the schism is a result over jurisdiction which is a canonical issue.
@@thelastcrow Though that may be so, it does not answer the core question of which church in the Moscow-Constantinople schism is the One True Church. The claim that the “Eastern Orthodox Church” is the One True Church is not reflective of the reality of the internal division between the two largest sects. The “Eastern Orthodox Church” as presented does not exist as a united ecclesial body - rather it is a disconnected and divided series of national churches - the largest of which are which are no longer in communion. Whether they believe the same thing does not change the fact that they are not one church, and as such, the “body” they are supposedly members of (the “Eastern Orthodox Church”) is categorically disqualified from being the “One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”.
Hopefully, this internal schism within an already schismatic church will lead to recognition of the necessity of the successor of St. Peter as the primus inter pares and cornerstone upon which the ecclesial body of Christ is held together - as was recognized since the advent of Christianity.
Otherwise, you get this:
“[...] the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church barred all members of the Moscow Patriarchate (both clergy and laity) from taking part in communion, baptism, and marriage at any church controlled by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Before that, in response to the appointment of two exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate had decided, on 14 September 2018, to break off participation in any episcopal assemblies, theological discussions, multilateral commissions, and any other structures that are chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
Moscow and Constantinople did have a schism before the one of Ukraine in 1996 over the jurisdiction of Estonia, communion was broken and then later restored.
is there a transcript of the opening statements?
This is how Christians should debate.
That does it; I’m becoming Orthodox! This was the final nudge I needed.
What arguments convinced you?
This is amazing!!! May the Lord hold you tightly!
I have thoroughly shown in my videos that the Orthodox erred on the Filioque. And no one has been able to adequately address my arguments. Therefore Catholicism, not Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of truth
@@dwong9289 I never made the argument that I thought Orthodoxy contains the “fullness of truth”. Merry Christmas 🎁🎄 ☺️
@@dwong9289 did the catholic church error for the seven centuries before the filioque was added? Also what about the recent pope who said the Filioque was optional to say? While I'm thinking about it, how do you perceive the Eastern catholics who reject the filioque?
Please pray and offer sacrifices for me brothers and sisters I was leading a very sinful life. Please offer up some of your Lenten sacrifices to help me make expiation for my sins. Thank you
I will
I agree with both but I think Fr. Patrick's statement about what woudl convincing him to be Catholic is less about the consistency of the teaching and more about the consistency of the Papacy's authority from tradition to be less convincing than Erick's which is consistency in Orthodoxy unity.
Is there a transcript for this debate?
Both Erick and Fr. Patrick did a great job but I think Erick's opening statement was more substantive with regard to historical facts, while Fr. Patrick spent more time explaining Orthodox ecclesiology rather than showing historical evidence against papal primacy.
Also, Fr. Patrick seems to contradict himself when he acknowledges Rome as being part of the Petrine See and divinely instituted by Christ but then says that Rome became heretical. If Rome was divinely instituted by Christ then it cannot be in err as that would mean that Christ's promise in Matt 16:18 was not true.
It's because he believes that the Petrine See is something that can be shared by many sees, not only Rome.
@Philippe L I agree, I was just explaining Fr. Patrick's view.
@@Erick_Ybarra I understand. Thanks a lot for your response Erick! God Bless.
@@Erick_Ybarra Good job Erick! Hope if you have time to respond to some of the more mature comments on here.
We believe in Papal primacy, not supremacy.