I want to give my experience going on Jays space last weekend. I am a Protestant, and I was arguing for our inclusion in the church of Christ. Immediately he accuses me of being someone else, and that really threw me off because I was already nervous. Then came an onslaught of questions which he never allowed me to answer in detail. Then when I asked him to provide info on a subject I didn’t know about, he muted me. I love the church, both Catholic and Orthodox, but I was very disappointed in his behavior because I did look up to him.
@@reasonandtheology I can see why you guys don't want to debate him anymore. It's not just about him being mean, it's about him being unstable, and not letting you get a word in without interrupting, it's rather frustrating.
@@OrthoNektarios There is no need to answer any of his questions on the historical data of Catholicism and Orthodox, because it’s irrelevant, I would of split from your gathering before the Catholic Church. A sleazy salesman creates problems and sells you the solution. That’s what Jay Dyer is a sleazy salesman, he should sell used beat up cars, his followers would buy it
I was an Anglo catholic when I first watched this debate. Got interested in EO and Jay Dyer was a man I loved to listen too. This was the first time I could honestly say Jay lost a debate ( and arguably the only time I’ve seen so far). A few months later I decided to become a catholic. This was not because of this video , as my pride blinded me to the truth. I can only thank our lady for guiding me to the correct church when I asked her and for god giving me the grace to ask in the first place. In the 2021 Easter vigil I was received into the ordinariate of our lady of walsingham. Thanks for the video chaps. Still love jay dyers work , but I think Ybarra is by far the better historian. I know am a subscriber and a regular listener to R and T . Michael gives one of the most nuanced approaches to dealing with the current crises as opposed to Taylor Marshall and the like. God bless
This guy is a better historian than Jay? Jays massive body of work alone makes him one of the most read historians available online, and thats excluding his exhaustive knowledge on theology, philosophy, metaphysics, i could go on. Ybarra couldnt shine his shoes.
@@countryboyred But part of the bad behavior was not letting the man finish his response, sure he had a tendency to repeat the same thing over and over again before actually getting to his point but Jay would never actually let him get to his point. I wonder why they never did another debate because I think it could be very enlightening
Someone's behaviour does not mean that his belief system is wrong or not. If a hindu was nice as Erick, I wouldn't become hindu. Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic?
I honestly don’t think he is that intelligent. He talks like he’s reading off a flowchart stuck in a feedback loop. His strategy for proving the papacy in the first millennium is ludicrous, if it existed it’s functioning would be thoroughly explicated in canon law of the time but such sources do not exist. All he can do is point to scattered minor attempts at papal supremacy or otherwise intensely read into documents with their contexts ignored. Jay totally won this & I’m not even Christian I’m atheist
I wish I would have listened to this, when it happened. Sorry to say, this sort of behavior is common online and as well in many parishes. Erick conducted himself well. I am truly so blessed to have found such good teachers as you and people like Erick. God bless you both.
Can we talk about the irony of Dyer talking about Ybarra being in a church that is bad for peoples’ souls while he’s acting in a completely uncharitable and disrespectful manner?
What’s so frustrating about debating orthodoxy is that you can show them evidence from their own patriarch and their own saints to disprove their claims and all they have in rebuttal is “we don’t believe patriarchs are without error” it’s absurd
Man, after 20 years of online debate, Jay unfortunately reminds me of myself. This has been pretty eye opening to my own habits. Excellent job, Ybarra. Exposed to me personally how much growth I need.
@@williamcoreli6248 Regardless of Jay's attitude it doesn't take away from his arguments is what i interpreted SIZIJI to be saying. I would agree with that statement as well
Yes a bunch of quote mines mean your position is right. I guess that means all the Protestant denominations are right too since they can quote-mine almost as food as Ybarra 😂
Wait, I agree Dyer's not charitable. But isn't the issue both EO and RC have the same issue? 1:45:50-1:49:20 ish is really helpful on both EO an RC admitting eccunumenical councils having reception theory that can develop things dialectically over time. Magisterial development and theoretical infallibility, with the unique infallible authority of the pope in the system, and the impossibility of the papal structure failing, is similar to the impossibility of the orthodox structure failing.
I am raised Catholic and became Orthodox. I have been called back to Catholicism but had some confusion internally that I have been working through. I watched this to gain some perspective. Erick was a knowledgeable gentleman. Jay’s demeanor and temperament does not represent Orthodoxy well, and has turned me off to hearing any point he may have. Erick’s knowledge, and demeanor lends to a holy and peaceful perspective. You will know them by their fruits. Thank you Erick. Not by your knowledge, but by your example, I am coming closer to a decision . May God bless you and your ministry. Also discontinuing my subscription to Jays channel. This isn’t a tit for tat action, this is to teach a lesson that poor behavior will not be tolerated, and that there are honest seekers questioning the future of their souls who are looking toward men like him for answers, and are greeted with his poor behavior. Mr. Dyer, your behavior has repercussions. May Lord have Mercy.
raised Catholic, left, went to the protestants for awhile, and contemplated orthodox, but returned to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and now going to the TLM and loving it. this catholic/orthodox struggle is the devil trying to destroy us. Viva Cristo Rey!
Dont agree with your reasoning. You basically saying because of Jays behavior you didn't listen to any of his points and like how ybarra conducted himself so you accept what he is saying. This somehow leads you to being roman catholic. If individual who was catholic who met a Muslim who was nice to them and their catholic family was not nice is it good reasoning to become Muslim? You need to listen to Jays actual points and understand them and then make decision and take out emotions.
@@randomperson-gp8ph It's all in the delivery, people won't listen if you are behaving like a jerk no matter who solid your argument is. If you'e an atheist who cares but if you are a follower of Christ we have a responsibility to imitate Him in the world. Christ is supposed to transform our entire being, behave charitably in interaction with each other in deed and words, show the fruits of that conversion. Eriks behaviour impacted him more. He didn't say he was returning to Catholicism because of one debate. He clearly says he's CLOSER to a decision, he's on a journey, the debate was just one step on the path. He was a subscriber to Jays channel so he has had ample opportunity to listen to his arguments and watch his behaviour before the debate.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker He literally says he has not listened to any points jay dyer made because of his demeanor. It is not reasonable. No matter how you try to justify it. A wise man can even learn from a fool. Jay is far from a fool. Would it not be reasonable to say I listened to both debaters. After understanding both their arguments then decide where the truth lies.
It seems to me, Jay would never admit the papacy was true no matter how many historical documents Erick presents regardless... I can understand the position he takes, but it doesn't prove the papacy wrong. Hearing Orthodox saints appeal to the papacy is pretty much as good of an argument you can make without literally going back in time and personally speaking to people.
"You talk in slow motion dude, come on" ~ 2:07:39 I don't know much about Jay Dyer, but as an Orthodox Christian myself, I can tell from this debate that he's not a respectful guy. Constant interruptions, ad hominem, strawmanning, etc.
Congrats to Erick for being able to make it through Jay acting like a child, I know I could never. The only thing anyone could gain from this is that Jay can’t get anything done with his antics. I pray he gets better and we can achieve something with him.
Erick, you debated well against a narcissist. I found Jay a while back, listened to a bit of his material, got turned off by his prideful rhetoric, and quickly decided to stop listening to him...till this. This confirmed my prior decision. Thank you for your patience and respectfulness. You came out far ahead in this debate.
Jays points were unmet by Erick even if Erick was far better behaved. I was expecting Erick to win this debate and especially after I saw how Jay was acting and how it started off with the issue of debate topic but once I focused in on the actual issues discussed Jay made excellent points that Erick couldn’t refute. Papal doctrine, which is central to Catholicism, evolved over time into the beast it is today. Erick pointed out incidences when the Bishop of Rome was respected and honored but never any time greater than most honored bishops and certainly no evidence for what is currently taught as eternal and Catholic papal dogma.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk so your making a decision based on how some people behave?? The goal is to find the truth not who acts better..i know many atheist who are thr most polite people i have ever met.. doest that mean i will abandon Christianity and my God for them???
The supposed evidence is very dubious and he openly listed forgeries it's all based on. Just because the man is a fraud and a douchebag doesn't mean he hasn't stated this.
@@NikolaAvramov but the whole point of the question Erick posed is so that he knows what evidence he thinks proves his case based on that criteria. You can then discuss and reject/accept the evidence.
@@TheChunkyCrusader Same. The dude is a fraud and knows it. Notice how he freaked out when he was asked about the date of his "conversion". Dude couldn't even wait two seconds to hear Eric out, immediately started counter signaling because his track record is absolute garbage.
You are obviously sharper Mr. Ybarra than Jay that's why someone like him gets easily irritated and evidently disturbed in reasoning with you. Keep up the good work for the Catholic Faith. God Bless you so much.
Jay would predictably claim that Ybarra didn't understand the premise (about Vatican 1) except that those parameters, in Vatican 1, including ex Cathedra statements and matters of faith and morals (ordinary magisterium) do allow for errors to be made. Such significant errors that antipopes like Honorius and Liberius could be condemned as anti-popes by the Catholic Church. He even admitted it at 2:29:58 during the debate.
The last two hours were literally this: Erick- What kind of evidence I can use to convince you of the papacy. Jay- none, only coherency. Erick- ok, but if I can’t use the church fathers, saints, ecumenical councils nor local sinods what kind of evidence I can use. Jay- none , only coherency.
ON MARY BEEN PRAISED AND VENERATED Luke 11:27-28 "As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”(This is Jesus downplaying the importance of mary in bringing him to earth) Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger" (in reference to mary been falsely called as queen of heaven shows the worship or reverence of these godess is ancient and pagan) ON PRAYER IN GENERAL Matthew 6:9 ""This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name" (this is Jesus teaching his disciples on prayer nowhere does he mention the importance of praying to his mother for graces or protection) Ephesians 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people." (This is one of Paul's numerous teachings on prayer there's just no sign of rosary or mary) ON MARY BEEN SEEN AS MEDIATOR OR AS A NECCESSARY INTERCESSOR 1 timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" Romans 8:26 " Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" Hebrews 7:25 "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." ON PRAYING TO DEAD PEOPLE AMD ADRESSING SAINTHOOD Romans 1:7 "To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Shows who is a saint. Its not some process the Vatican makes. Its everyone who loves God and Beleives in Jesus christ) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1Thessalonians 4:17 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"(shows there is no one alive in any heaven. This is paul speaking years after the resurrection of christ. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about this too) ON WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE SAVED Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"(this is wjat is needed baptism is the final confirmation. No where do we see you need to be baptized first to be saved or you need to be baptized by any specific church) Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned" (as you can see Beleiving is the emphasis and tue consequences of not Beleiving is the main topic not being baptized. When you Beleive tobbe baptized woukd be the least of problems) Matthew 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(He gave this commission to his disciples that is all who were following him. Not to any church organization) ON THE MEANING OF THE CHURCH, WHAT THE CHURCH DID WHEN THEY MET AND CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 1 Corinthians12:13 "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (This talks about how one becames part of the body of christ and that is true his spirit. How does one receive the spirit, acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit") Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (This is quite clear) 1 Corinthians 14:26 "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (This is what we should do when we come together we don't see this in the RCC and to be fair many protestant and orthodox churches as well, paul teaches we all have different gifts and different things to contribute to the growth of one another. Today the opposite is the case. Its usually one head man or gis subordinates in different branches of an organization calling the shots) Titus 1:5-6" For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient" 1 timothy 3:1-6" This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity"(requirements for being a bishop/elder of a local congregation. No where do we see that they must not be married or celibate. This is falsehood the Catholic Church forces on its clergy(whom they call priest btw) Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.(Like many of the protestant churches the Catholic Church barely or doesn't recognize these gifts. Instead it has its strange hierarchical structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and finally the pope who has a pagan title pontifux maximus and vicar of christ meaning representative of Christ. This is who Jesus said was his representative on earth. John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" no one man is representative of christ only his spirit. The argument of Peter is forced in. Peter was a spokesman quite alright but he never assumed any authority as head of christs church that title belongs to Christ alone Collosians 1:17-18 "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent" Theres little evidence peter was in rome and peter for sure wasn't called papa nor did he have a papal palace not did he decree papal bulls. These are all strange to the new testament church) Finally the churches in the new testament were local congregations with elders or bishops they did not have any subordination to rome or some pope somewhere. They only had subordination to Christ. The bishop or elder was appointed for guiding the people in the right direction.
@@jzak5723 Well unfortunately sir. Christ never founded an institution. I beleive this is the point many people in maby denominations especially catholics get it wrong. They see the church as some organization with a ceo on top. If we are true to scriptures well realize that the church is a body of people(ecclesia... Called out ones) who have faith and trust in christ will christ himself as the head over his body reigning in every one of us though the spirit. Yes we come together in fellowship ot strengthen and encourage one another and yes in our locak congregations for administration purposes like paul teaches in 1 timothy we appoint a bishop/elder who is a great example and should be married(catholic church teaches otherwise) we see that these its just for administrative purposes with the elder not answering to some chief elder or archbishop and all the local congregations in unison answering to one congregation and their bishop in rome as pope. See the difference there Hope you see it. If you have any other questions feel free to ask
@@jzak5723 Unfortunately you strawman me Every argument you've listed i didn't make and bever implied. We have actual Christians in scriptures ; the acts of the apostles and the letters of paul. Their example is enough. I do not support the many man made denominational church institutions or organizations we have(Catholic, orthodox, protestant, JW, mormon). All are man made attempts to recreate Christianity in their image that's why we see ego battles, we see articles if dogmas each Duffering and enforced on the people with severe consequences to keep people loyal and enslaved to them I realized that when someone challenged me to actually read the scriptures especially the new testament as an actual historical document and record of what my lord Jesus christ did and taught and what his immediate apostles taught Beleived and practiced. So you want to know how Christians met and organized themselves without denominations amd roman catholic institutions. Read the scriptures i gave to you earlier, read titus, 1 timothy, acts of the apostles read them in context without any external influence
@@jzak5723 No disrepect but you have proved nothing except my point. The scriptures you quoted are clear you don't need my interpretation or your interpretation. Let's not distract ourselves here. 1St timothy 3 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; This is clearl. Also the argument was yhat the roman catholic church teaches otherwise. The Catholic Church says for you to be a "priest" i quote it beacause we don't see priests in the new testament you must be celibate. Priests caught not celibate are stripped of their priesthood. This is a masive contradiction to what we see in scriptures. I'm actually suprised you only picked on this point. I know why?? Like many humans you don't want to be wrong nobody wants to be wrong there's a strong attraction to what we have held and known, there is always fear of losing that identity. So you decided to pick on what you thought was your best argument which by the way isn't even right and doesn't change the point of the main argument. I sincerely understand was once in that boat i held on deeply to what i have been taught as doctrine strongly until i was challenged to actually read the new testament without any bias or any group's dogma or interpretation. Reading the new testament as an historical record of what christ and his apostles taught beleived and practiced you cannot just see roman catholicism or any man made denominational group or institution like orthodoxy protestantism, JW, MORMONISM there
I’m afraid that my pride has kept me away from the thought of the Catholic Church being right.. this is eye opening to me that I might’ve acted this way. I was a nondenominational Christian praying to God for wisdom and guidance because I want to be closer to God. I was considering orthodoxy but after this I need to research more..
Are you saying that because you saw someone arguing the Orthodox position be "mean," you have to reevaluate Orthodoxy? You will find much stronger language in Paul's epistles and the Church Fathers. Are you simply going to ignore the glaring inconsistency between Vatican 1 and 2 (and Ybarra concedes) that Jay points out because Ybarra continually missed Jay's points for 2 hours? I can agree that it would be helpful for Jay to be more patient at times, but don't also miss that Ybarra seems to miss the point so much that it seems like he is not arguing in good faith.
@@reasonandtheology Really because he attack the very christ like monk Fr Seraphim of Mull. I lost all my taste for him. FYI I am Orthodox Christian myself.
@@MrJMB122 Why did he attack Father Serafim? I love him. I can see why certain Christians who twist Christ to conform to their worldly right wing politics might be stirred to anger by some of what he says.
@@MrJMB122 Yeah. It makes me sad to see but that's exactly how the devil works. All worldly group identities have enough to appeal to good conscience but then divide and conquer.
Unfortunately many people here fall under the school of thinking that whoever is calmer wins the debate. It kinda reminds me of the Trump and Biden debates back in 2020, where people thought a brainless Biden won because he was less aggressive. Unfortunately the same thing is happening here. People are missing the reason why Jay is short and frustrated and its because in this video, as well as most Jay's debates. The person debating is not actually addressing Jay rebuttals and is talking in circles to avoid a direct debate with Jay. Anyways I know theres mostly Catholics here but that's the truth of it.
@@chriseko5090 Jay made no rebuttals. He asserted repeatedly, contrary to the evidence, that the claims about Rome were of a generic appellate nature and then proceeded to ramble for minutes on end throwing out a grab-bag of pop-apologist arguments against Catholicism until Erick reigned him back in over and over. It was embarassing
I’m currently an ex-Protestant weighing the EOC and RCC and this discussion really helped a lot. Jay dyer was my main source of Orthodoxy and I feel Eric did very well against him! Though Jay does put out some interesting stuff about globalism and new world order stuff I think I’ll have to look elsewhere for orthodox theological talks. Maybe just convert to Catholicism already
If I might add anything, this kind of philosophical historical stuff will go on forever and ever. What's important to know is that you can never really be certain of something unless God gives you a glimpse into his fullness. That being said, the best place you can learn about the Orthodox faith, and the Catholic faith, for that matter, is simply by going and experiencing the two of them. The intellect alone won't take you to where you need to go! But if you're looking for more digestable content, I'd suggest with the youtube channel theoria. It helped me a lot during my conversion.
If you email youtuber truthbetold7, he will send you gratis a lengthy patristic book about the papacy issues based strictly from Church Fathers. Keep praying and discerning and you may be closing in on the truth sooner than you think.
Ew world order ? From the conspiracy of the SDA? Goodness 😅😅😅. People now( atleast in Philippines,specially those protestants, and cults) are blaming Catholics for the covid 19 and the injection is now starting for that ONE WORLD RELIGION 🤣🤣🤣.
@@johncollorafi3548 I actually converted maybe 2 months after this video! Truthbetolds conversion in late 2019 led to the end of my entertaining eastern orthodoxy. His brief talk on Vladimir soloveyevs book, Russia and the universal church, led me to read the book which was the final nail in the coffin that put it all to rest. Strangely , truthbetold7 seems to have returned to eastern orthodoxy. Hopefully he returns! I mean, every problem he used to rightly complain about within orthodoxy is still present in the EO church. It's actually worse. Yes, I believe I've taken a look at the book In a short video of his. Does he still share the book even though he's turned from catholicism?
@@rohan7224 Irrelevant all the same. You can't just break dogma and creed and then say "I found a 6th century writing that says I can so I must've been right" and consider it hard evidence. Well, you can, but that's literally heretical behavior. The definition of it, in fact. Pretentious cherrypicking.
@@rohan7224 hard evidence, like not a single one of the 7 ecumenical councils stating that the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ and he has infallibility.
Glad I found this channel. I am an EO considering Catholicism. Jay unfortunately acted very immature here and somewhat ruined the video. I am very interested in watching more content from Erick now, as I had never seen him before. Erick seems extremely well informed and rational.
Grant Michael I highly highly recommend his work. I’m a Catholic convert from Orthodoxy and I wish I’d had his content at the time I was converting! Steve Ray’s Upon This Rock book is also something I highly highly recommend on this issue
Grant Michael Well if you are willing to read that book read the papacy by abbe guettee, before you make a decision . It converted me from Roman Catholicism to the Orthodox Church. I don’t agree with Jays actions at times and would love it if he was more humble but his talks on the theology of the Orthodox Faith are solid.
You can tell who is a father in this debate. Eric has the patience to get through difficult emotional discussions, Jay will have his patience tested if he becomes a father one day. Blessing to all of yall.
True. This is the difference between the spirit of evangelizing (Erick) and proselytizing (Jay). Erick's patience and goodwill is far more reminiscent of the Gospel than Jay's anger and marketing tactics.
Jay’s attitude is very protestant, saying that we have changed the position of The Holy Spirit to that of the Pope!?! Even if he now considers himself a Russian Orthodox, his old protestant attitudes are still there towards the Catholic Church. The Early Church Fathers, who he has read, a-test to the primacy of the Bishop Of Rome, but as an ex-protestant, who will never accept The Papacy, he seems the only Church he could be part of with valid Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments could only be one that would continue the protestant tradition of anti-pope. Acts 15, Peter had the last word, the scripture says he “ROSE UP”, this is very important, because that meant he had authority and would speak authoritatively and he did.
"Pope vs. Anti-Pope" is a Western Christian thing. You're all stuck in this endless dialectic, while Orthodoxy has deeper roots than that 11th century heresy made official. In fact, its attitude is Wholistic. This is why Orthodox Christians avoide the capitalists vs. communists crap or liberals vs. nazis crap and gets accused of being all of those even though none of these shoes fit. There's a profound difference that you all just miss 'cause you're stuck in this dialectic indoctrination.
@@NikolaAvramov Lol you're blindly repeating Jay Dyer's hodgepodge without making any convincing point. If you have nothing of value to say then just stfu
Jay clearly has an Ego the size of Jupiter 🙄 As an Orthodox of 13 years whose been through undergrad & graduate Seminary, I recognize the straw arguments and selective readings of church history the Orthodox use. I hope to be received into the Catholic Church very soon.
@@tryhardf844 Ybarra spammed with pointless general insincere nice gestures, "I hear you, Jay", "We can talk about that some other time", and historical cases that were supposed to build his case through induction in order to avoid the obvious inconsistencies between Popes and their decrees. Dyer isn't notorious for those. He's notorious for rude insults, sticking to a narrow topic of his expertise on theology, "Chad" philosophy and its implicit social Darwinism and trash talk with innuendo and dubious relations with the Orthodox Church.
@@NikolaAvramov insincere by your standards, not by Gods. you are judging and God said not to do that. At the end of the day Orthodox have a basic problem with authority and have no answer for it. We Catholics have the Chair of Peter and live in relative clarity about what we believe. In the Orthodox church its essentially like anglicanism where i can find orthodox bishops who believe differently on a number of isses such as contraception and divorce or even the filioque, but they remain under this umbrella term of "Orthodoxy" that really doesnt stand for much. Thats why Russia and Greece are now in schism because they lack a basic understanding of authority. Much peace and love to my russian orthodox brothers.
@@lionheart5078 Orthodoxy is a CONFEDERATION of Bishops, or a Confederated Hierarchy. Our strength is PRECISELY because We don’t keep all our eggs in one jurisdictional basket. Ever since the Carolingian influence on the See of Rome led her to become a Top-Down monarchy, whenever Rome drifts from Orthodoxy, all under her are dragged along with her. In Orthodoxy, when someone becomes irrevocably heretical, we amputate to keep the gangrene from spreading. It’s also odd to make an example of Bart because he has been corrupted by the same globalist ideologies that have led Francis down the soft postmodernist path he has taken. Bugnini and his ilk, once they took control of the Papacy, (not as directly and quickly as they had hoped), ALL was lost and the rest is a 100 years of residual traditionalists in denial, futilely trying to hold the utterly impossible contradictions of Vaticans 2 AND 1 together, even as such infamous men as Cardinal Mahoney and that “African Queen” character refuse to excommunicate ANYONE like Pelosi or Biden, and allow people in general who are openly supporting infanticide and/or are in denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Whenever 99% of Orthodox priests becomes aware of a parishioner who denies the Real Presence, or is openly supporting abortion, yet STILL dares to present himself for communion, he will be DENIED. “Repent or SIT DOWN”, and that is THAT. Oh, there’s some allegedly “Orthodox” parishes like the one Tom Hanks attends, (and had as parish priest the dad of that hack journalist, Stepenopolis) but they are among the few in America not resisting Bart’s extremism, embracing it even. They are no more Orthodox anymore than you are. I would never set foot in a Greek parish in that diocese. The truly Orthodox in that area near Hollyweird are all fleeing to Antioch, which, while not as confrontational as Moscow, WILL NOT BEND. They will go two hours out of their way to a true Orthodox parish than continue to go to the Greek parish down the street that has gone “woke”. Fortunately, this is about the only diocese in America that’s been having to do this. Bart is not popular. Trad Romans going out of their way to the Latin mass or Uniate Liturgies may claim to relate, but Novis Ordo IS the “law of the WHOLE land” and there’s nowhere truly for you to permanently escape to from it without becoming SOME kind of Sedevacantist. If you ultimately take THAT route, why trust ANY of the popes since at least 1204? (I prefer that date for the schism.) We Orthodox have treated the SECOND seat of Peter as empty since then. But we have other seats to turn to, Peter’s First, in my case.
Why the Eastern Orthodoxy in the world do not want a visible Head of the Church globally? Do you ever see a fold of sheep without a shepherd? Christ established only one Church to cover all the world, so it's logical we have one shepherd globally as a visual head of her Church while Jesus ascended to the Heaven. That's why we need a Pope to be our leader for both East and West. Why is so hard to accept Jesus' decision.?
I think my only issue is, why did it take 1000 years after Jesus to make these changes and elect a pope and add the Filioque? Why does the church keep evolving over time even now? Wouldn’t the apostles teach us since the beginning everything we needed to know?
I think you already failed when you decided its because "we don't _want_ a head of the church. If Jesus only wanted one head he would have just had one disciple and everyone would be under him. But thats not what we see. We see a council in Acts 15 in which the apostles and other disciples all discuss and they come to a decision together and it's James the brother of the Lord, the Bishop over Jerusalem who makes the pronouncement of the council. Peter did have a role in guiding it, but there would be no need for the council if it was just peter making the decisions. All of the bishops are shepherds over the various flocks of the earth. It's not just Peter who was given the keys.
Jay doesn't seem to have a good grasp on papal infallibility. I don't think it is because he is ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches but rather, like so many Protestants, he puts his own spin on it and requires everything to be proven to refute his incorrect view. At least he admits he is reading his own Orthodox viewpoint into history which makes it easy for him to reject any Eastern Fathers which supported Papal supremacy and infallibility.
Erick repeated Jay's points to clarify, especially around juridical synodal enlightenment of truth to the Christian, to say that Catholics believe the same thing. Jay went on to attack a straw man of what Catholics believe and teach. He thinks he understands what the Catholic Church teaches but attacking a straw man is just weak. Him losing his cool was not cool. That usually happens when someone is defeated.
He was a Roman Catholic that was studying it all for 12 years on his way to becoming a monk. He red Denzinger's Catholic dogma twice. Most people haven't. Erick was manipulative and relied on the audience short attention spans and inability to see platitudes as deliberate smokescreen. The "straw man" he mentioned is still true. It's not a strawman if you don't misquote and make something up. Dyer's a douchebag and a fraud, but Ybarra isn't that better.
I would argue that Eastern Orthodox know the subject of "papal infallibility" better than almost all Roman Catholics, as Orthodoxy has spent 1000 years refuting it.
Dyer clearly lost every single argument, and turned it into throwing at Eric just about anything and see if it sticks, I felt like I'm watching muslim going on tiktok rant. Hats off to Eric for keeping it civil
@@jamesellis4035 no only that, but first sign of losing is turning to personal attacks because you don't have answers, Dyer clearly had nothing to show except basic Internet arguments and 0 knowledge to address any Eric objections. After being slapped for each of these weak polemics it was clear he got frustrated so to "save face" he tried to intimidate Eric
@@jamesellis4035 my friend, it's clear Jay totally failed and went through meltdown. In one sentence he ask for "coherent, consistent evidence for Papacy from beginning to end" in next one he denies same criteria for Eastern Orthodoxy by saying "in our view Saints can make mistakes" essentially refuting his own claims for Orthodoxy
@@flisom Yes, i guarantee to you that what i said about Jay Dyer is true, how so? he said it himself to his public ruclips.net/video/XRLOQUnw-FY/видео.html (1:44:51)
Jay Dyer lost this debate, doesn't know how to have a respectful discussion and lacks charity. He is a very bad ambassador for Orthodoxy. Erick makes me proud to be Catholic.
"jay dyer mean!!" how do you not see that the RCC is an incoherent system. Your basis for the truth is papal infallibility which you have to believe because the pope infallibly said that it was the case. 🤡
Yeah I don’t think he’s being arrogant or cocky, I think he’s being short, impatient, and discourteous especially in comparison to Eric but he clearly perceives a dishonest and derailing pattern in Eric that he’s become impatient with wether you agree with his perception or not.
Wow, Jay is a disrespectful debater who can't stand for an opponent to make a grounded logical argument. He tells you what you believe and then declares you wrong, then a liar when you try to correct him. He did not make a good showing for Eastern Orthodox in this video. Way too emotional and irrational.
Dyer's selling Paganism, endorsing criminals, sweettalking Nazis, flashing the sign of the horns, and selling snake oil in shady circles. Orthodox Christians don't do that. He's fake. All the same - this is a good video to figure out how manipulative Ybarra is.
@Sling Blade I thought so, myself, until I've listened to what he's saying for longer than 5 minutes. I thought he was too harsh on Luc Dauvin, yet he committed an hour to explain why what Luc said was ridiculous and stupid. How is that rude and too harsh?
If I had to pick a winner based on fruits of the Holy Spirit, Erick is in the right. Jason, I will be praying for you. Your soul seems to be so bitter.
@@GeorgeK1410 lol stop making up stuff, he comes off as a christian who treats people with respect and doesnt act like a child. Jay behaved like a 5 year old who needs a spanking.
Jay is such a douche here (and in most cases, he doesn’t make sense, and he’s all over the place). And even with all the interruptions, I think Ybarra did a great job here, intellectually... and emotionally. He’s very patient, it’s amazing.
I’m not a catholic or Eastern Orthodox. That being said. What Jay doesn’t understand is this…plain and simple, because you can interrupt somebody regardless of worldview, that doesn’t win a argument. Jay doesn’t understand how to debate, he thinks if I interrupt and spew “my worldview over yours” “therefore I win the debate”… anybody could shred Jay in a debate by simply letting him talk and pointing out his flaws in logic and theology. It’s too simple. Jay’s victims are those who have to answer his questions going down his rabbit trail. Don’t fall victim to a forked tongue devil who wants to control your thinking, Gods Word is for everyone who believes plain and simple
I enjoyed the debate. I am a Roman Catholic with sympathies with the EO. This is the first time I’ve seen an in-depth discussion of the issue and I agree with Erick. His presentation and support for the argument is quite convincing, despite most of us Catholics disliking Pope Francis and his behavior. I wish Jay the best
Pope Francis' current path to take RC down the sinful wide road proves the Orthodox view that no one Bishop should control the Church. Holy men should come together on equal ground to by consensus lead Christ's Church.
@@paulgundrum9059 Your argument holds no water. Until a pope binds the faithful to believe error (which will never happen because of Christ's promise and never has happened), then we can talk.
@@rody3199 So Pope Francis praying with Muslims isn't error? Previous Popes would call him apostate. Ending the Latin Mass? Again, previous Popes would call him a heretic. Is it possible that this has been happening since Vatican 2, but so slowly that devout RC's are like the frog in the pan being brought to boiling?
@@paulgundrum9059 Of course it is error, but he has not and cannot bind us to error. You clearly don't understand Papal Infallibility. Also the Pope has the right to abrogate the Latin Mass regardless of how imprudent it may be.
@@GB-jc8eo wow, You are a better man than I. Your devotedness to Papal infallibility takes more faith than following Christ. While Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever the Papacy is definitely changeable.
And another thing: Jay's absolute refusal to simply come out and say what his required standard of evidence would be to proof the papacy is further evidence that, at least on public venues, he has no interest of engaging in dialogue or trying to find out the truth, all he wants to do is "win", which is why it's impossible for him to say: "this is something that would defeat my and the Orthodox positions", God forbid Eric or someone else might actually pull the trigger and meet that burden of proof for him in public.
@@josealzaibar5274 Which makes him more honest, 'cause Ybarra would say "I understand that, Eric. We can talk about that in some other debate. But here's what I want to know" and then repeat his argument and pretend not to have heard the other guy's argument. Which he did dozens of times.
Being able to discern Truth doesn't require us to admire the truth teller as perfect. Jay Dyer has been a tremendous help in understanding philosophy history and theology for many people. The delusion comes from believing a single man can account for all things. Have you seen the Catholic's infallible Pope recently? You can make any argument you want, calling Francis infallible is the same delusion as anyone who thinks Jay Dyer is infallible. Both Francis and Jay have said true things but both have been tremendously incorrect about other things. They are just men after all and will be judged before God as men. The only truly infallible one is God and his Incarnation. He is the Beginning and the End after all. Believing a man titled Pope is perfect as Christ is perfect while history shows us tyranny and degeneracy is commonplace in the Papic authority is so damaging to the witness those claiming to be Christian have on the world. People see Catholics as a den of pedophiles and see their sister Churches found in Protestantism as out of touch and cruel or spineless or both. This will not stand on the day of judgement. God have mercy on us.
@Jay Dire So if a Mormon Child is being abused by their family and only has prayer, they can't be heard due to the heretical dogma they're under? Don't assume you know God.
@Harley Mann I'm sure many people (like yourself) are incapable of discerning truth from those who only see part of it... That's everyone by the way. I don't believe Jay can account for all things. Haha he's just a man and you're just some avatar on RUclips. You can bare false witness to my position if you'd like... However the Bible says "we will know them by their fruit" and this is the truth, read history it doesn't lie (which is probably why you won't read it). Roman Catholics are the ones who are deceived. Their spiritual Hubris has ended the lives of millions in their "Holy Wars" and the Pope's historical degeneracy with pedophilia scars his "infallible" witness to the world (infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong). If you try to defend Catholicism you defend it from a position of weakness. You can call me deceived and just dismiss me if you like but I can still yell to the heavens that the Pope accepts the "civil unions" of homosexuals and has used God's name to justify the destruction of millions of Jews, Muslims and Orthodox at Jerusalem.
@Jay Dire So there's exceptions to your rule. It's funny how exceptions tend to appear when rules don't hold up. Why doesn't that apply to your idol the Pope? The Truth is Jesus Christ who is the Godhead of the Church not the Pope.
This was painful. Dyer spends ages rudely admitting that nothing from the first 1000 years of church history could be used to convince him that he is wrong about the papacy. Genuinely baffling.
I think he did a poor job explaining it, but I understood him to say it's basically asking to prove a negative. To prove papal infallibility you need a list of every ex cathedra statement ever made, and to prove that it is correct, and to prove the permeance of the office you'd need a list of every pope and proof that none of them were heretics.
@@MrWoaaaaah You can kind of phrase it either way. To say the pope is always infallible when speaking ex cathedra is the same as saying the pope is NEVER fallible when speaking ex cathedra.
@@boochparadise do you think Dyer's point is that you cannot disprove/prove a negative, so therefore the claim is meaningless? If so, then if the claim can be turned from a negative into a positive, as you say, then his objection disappears.
I thank God for this debate, at first I was feeling some doubts about my Catholic faith when it came to EO but after seeing this I'm very much secure in the Church.
Jay "debates" a lot like the Diamond Brothers. He does a lot of moving of the goalposts. He throws a lot of shotgun superficial arguments that are not deep. Then when things are going the wrong direction he says "we have a different epistemology". The example of that is that everybody in Eastern Orthodoxy, including councils can be wrong. I have no idea what the criteria for truth is in Eastern Orthodoxy after watching this debate ❓The criteria for truth is just circular. Also Jay uses the same criteria of judging papal statements as sedevacantists. He expects absolute papal orthodoxy in every statement, which is completely contradictory to the teachings of Vatican 1.
I keep coming back to this video. I think the argument Jay is trying to make is that, if indeed the Pope possessed the charism of infallibility (ex cathedra) dating all the way back to the Gospel of Matthew, then there could be no case in which a pope was a heretic or an apostate. The reasoning is because those two facts are contradictory; a heretic/apostate Pope cannot, by definition, be infallible - under *any* circumstances. I think along with this is some claim that a heretic is ipso facto excommunicated from at least his office - and possibly from the Church as a whole. But history clearly shows that we have had heretical Popes. Therefore, it cannot be true that a charism of infallibility was ever implied or discharged onto Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18. Or at the very least, the Pope makes his own office null and void as soon as he becomes a heretic, therefore making it impossible for him to discharge any divinely-willed grace of infallibility (since he has, in effect, vacated his own office). I think what Eric would need to show to defeat Jay's argument is that, *even if* a pope was heretical, the charism of infallibility stays on him, and prevents him from error under the narrow conditions where he can speak infallibly.
Ya I just came back to this as well. Couple of things strike me. 1) Dyer comes across as angry and petulant in much of the cross examination; that alone makes me think he's arguing in bad faith. 2) He ironically actually makes the case for the need of a Pope, at least in doctrinal matters. If your councils and saints confirm the popes infallibility, but then later reneg on that; who decides that? As far as can a bad/heretical man be Pope...the answer is of course yes. Many of the men that God appointed throughout both the New and old testament fell far short of their office. But it didn't change the fact that their office was Holy and appointed by God.
You make the claim that history shows there have been heretical popes. They have been pronounced heretical/antipopes because what they have spoken contradicts Church tradition. These statements are correct. Just a moment before you mentioned that a heretic can be ipso facto excommunicated from his office/the church depending on the severity of the heresy. All these statements are true, but I fail to see why this means it cannot be true that a 'charism of infallibility' is discharged onto Peter by Christ, since a Pope is _only_ infallible within a specific paradigm - on matters of faith and morals. This is where ex cathedra statements are important and directly relate to Christ's actions toward Peter. This is why Alexander VI, the notorious fornicator and degenerate could remain Pope, because he didn't dare touch the magisterium. I think this is where Jay is also wrong about the Vatican II stuff. No pope within the last 60 years (since the council) has spoken ex cathedra or made a dogmatic statement on faith and morals. Yes, they have relayed their opinions which contradict tradition, but like Alexander they haven't made official dogmatic statements or added to the magisterium. This is where I would bring up my view that Vatican II is a false council. I would say it makes sense, considering it just completely contradicts Trent and other previous councils in areas, but it's only my opinion and of course I leave up the possibility for me to be corrected on this matter. Yes, I think there is a possibility the sedevacantists are correct, but I do have problems resolving their view of the popes within the last 60 years.
@@jamesshaw6455jay clarifies the distinction early on in the debate. He isn’t talking about a “fall” he is talking about being a heretic which means outside of the church which means excommunication. How could a pope who is heretical, not immediately be excommunicated and if he is excommunicated how in the world would he have an office with which to speak infallibly? It necessitates that a pope cannot ever fall into heresy. We aren’t talking error. We aren’t saying he cannot make an error in judgment or even sin in some major way. We are talking about heresy which leads to excommunication. You can sin and not be excommunicated. So we are talking about how in the world if the pope judges all things, can a synod throw him out for sins/crimes that would necessitate excommunication. He could rule that he is not a heretic and overrule the whole body of the Church. Jay and the Orthodox are not arguing that the Pope did not have primacy and as they call it the highest office of appeal. They are arguing that this does not translate into basically a king over the church other than Christ and all of the other doctrines that accompany that. I agree with Ibbara that he technically wins the debate topic, but loses the war. You could almost understand the conciliar nature of the Church as more of a republic than a monarchy even though in civilian forms of government a monarchy would be the preferred form of government the Church is not a government. It is a priesthood and the highest office of appeal is a president but the president cannot execute absolute power. The way catholics view the papacy is that he has an absolute power relationship to the church more akin to a king than a president who is bound to other orders of authority.
Jay wasn’t here for a dialogue in good faith. He came to pick a fight and defend- not his Faith, rather to defend his ego. I really wanted to hear and understand his point, he let himself be the more important than The Faith.
For anyone wondering, this is the short version: Jay: If you're right I need to see the evidence Erick: ok what about you, can you show me the evidence you're right? Jay: no... why? that only applies to you, I know I'm right Erick: whatever here is the evidence (proceeds to cite the whole Church) Jay: I don't accept these Erick: ok what kind of evidence do you accept? Jay: If I saw one I could tell you but I didn't see any
Jay makes the point very clear that he finds evidentialist epistemology problematic because they could both just swap quotes back and forth. The point is they would just be reading those quotes according to their system. Instead, Jay wanted to compare the systems and see which one is more coherent. Orthodoxy can sustain errors in Church Fathers and councils and even heretical bishops because it is based on synodality. The Roman Catholic system, however, cannot sustain contradictions between something Vatican 1 and 2 and/or a heretical Pope and be coherent. Ybarra agrees with this @2:36:30 and Jay then points out the contradictions.
Jay is basically a Protestant that couldn’t justify critiquing Catholics from that point of view so he moved to EO to have a more solid foundation, even though he’s still not right.
I would humbly suggest that anyone can read the Patristic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc) and will clearly see NO MENTION of Papal supremacy or that the Bishop of Rome was the "authority". In fact one could discover that Polycarp travelled to Rome as Bishop of Smyrna and disagreed with the Pope (representing the other Eastern Churches) over the date of Easter/Pascha. Rather than declare anathema or excommunicate him, Pope Anicetus and Polycarp just "agreed to disagree". Here is a plain example of a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church openly in defiance of the dogma of Papal Supremacy from the second century. Eric argues that the Church "always" showed the aspect of Papal Supremacy even if it wasn't written specifically, but in this case Bishop Polycarp either didn't get the memo or didn't know/care. Was Pope Anicetus being magnanimous in not damning Polycarp to hell, OR did the thought not cross his mind because he didn't have the Supremacy to do so?
Jay's point was this: the papacy is structured in a fundamentally different manner than that of the Orthodox Church (so there was no double double standard as Erick was trying to imply that Jay was using: one can judge the papacy in one way and the Orthodox Church in another - and this is not double standard). The structure of the papacy does NOT allow any error because, as dogmatized in Vatican I, the presence of ONE error would demonstrate the falsity of the system as a whole (which claimed to be divinely instituted and therefore infallible). Ybarra's reaction was simply a refusal to answer Dyer's argument and a attempt to prove that a system of appeals to the Pope meant the same thing as Vatican I doctrine. Which is absurd. Jay would do good if pointed out specifically how Vatican I understands the Pope's power: “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power.” As Seraphim Hamilton showed in his video (www.youtube.com/ watch? v = BBOd2tXFObw) it is not possible to find evidence that popes had this kind of power (as defined in Vatican I) in the first millennium, so the papacy is false. Jay refused to argue about specific points in the past as Ybarra wanted because that's irrelevant: if Jay proves that there is an internal contradiction in the Papacy system the whole thing goes down. Ybarra was either pretending not understand Jay's argument (ie being dishonest) or he really didnt understand Jay's argument. Judge by yourself.
@@Erick_Ybarra "However, it should be borne in mind that the Catholic Church does not teach that the magisterium is always infallible. There are fallible versus infallible modes of teaching. This was not covered due to lack of will/time. However, in the pool of infallible modes of teaching, the Catholic Church has never erred." The problem is that Roman Catholics will simply say that whenever a pope erred it was not part of the infallible magisterium. So there is no way to convince a roman catholic that the infallible pope erred in the infallible magisterium. The roman catholics will always use this 'trick' of considering errors part of the 'falible magisterium'.
@@Erick_Ybarra Not him, but I can assure you it was clear where you were trying to go with your argument, however in order for your argument to work in the first place, you would have had to show where in formal EO doctrine it states that "Orthodox Saints [teaching] very clearly the divine institution of the Papacy" is incompatible with the EOC. And I'm generously overlooking the problems with that specific phrasing of your claim here. The core point is that EOC doesn't operate the same way as the RCC does in having these "modes" of fallibility vs infallibility. So cherry-picking instances of **any** Orthodox saints/church fathers "teaching the papacy", outside of a formal ecumenical counsel, is not invalid Orthodox discourse. Especially pre-schism, and when it was only a minority of the church fathers that were promoting this view in the first place. It's a view that's highly frowned upon now of course, but what you're trying to imply with your line of argument is some kind of formal contradiction, which simply is not there. And since the RCC (at least since Vatican I) operates with a much more strict and formal interpretation of condemnable actions, there's no way to adequately port the EOC's standard over to the RCC or vice-versa, which is what you're trying to do with your argument. "was it also clear that I was comparing how Jay is willing to shed failures of the past and thus putting the onus on him for the inconsistent standard he is placing on the Catholic?" Except that it's not about "shedding the failures of the past", it's about questionable things still being within the realm of acceptable tolerance. Like how in manufacturing, you might ask for a very precise measurement for a part, but realistically you're never going to get the ideal exact precision you want, so you have to design some wiggle-room to allow for error in the fabrication process. The RCC has the same notion of course, but its tolerance levels were severely constrained during Vatican I, giving it much less wiggle-room for error than the EOC. And since the RCC views the development of doctrine as simply elucidating what was always there already, it means those strict parameters need to apply retroactively as well. This effectively makes comparing the history of the EOC and the RCC like comparing apples and oranges. It's like asking a doctor that just measured another patient's temperature, why he couldn't also give you the courtesy of measuring your height with the same thermometer, and accusing him of placing an inconsistent standard on his patients. "confirm it was clear that the teaching ministry of the Pope and the Church has both fallible and infallible modes?" As alluded to by the first portion of this response, it is in fact clear. However, there is no analogue to this formal distinction in the EOC, and that's why a bridge can't just automatically be drawn between the two. You can try to argue for how you might do that, but that needs to come first before attempting to apply certain arguments to both simultaneously. Because without that, it's like trying to do physics while mixing metric and imperial units together without converting them first. Your best course of action against Jay's argument, would be to clearly demonstrate that the strict infallible rulings of Vatican I don't apply to infallible modes of teaching, and that all cases of apparent conflicts with Vatican I rules have been formally accepted as having been given during fallible modes of teaching, including any apparent contradictions in Vatican II. However, it would be even more convincing for Orthodox people if you tried to refute these essays instead: www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm web.archive.org/web/20120302163030/www.aoiusa.org/2009/09/the-idea-of-primacy-in-orthodox-ecclesiology/
@Paddy Mcgill >"So what you are saying is that Orthodox have no doctrine of Truth ?" What do you even mean by "doctrine of Truth"? If you're asking whether anything is considered infallible, then yes, such a things do exist, but it generally does not apply to individuals and their opinions, whereas it does apply to things such as councils and scripture. This is because we are all sinners, and our individual wills are generally unreliable. Therefore, granting a single individual infallibility under any circumstance (e.g. papal infallibility), is difficult to reconcile with the reality of fallen humans, and is more reminiscent of Protestant philosophy than anything the EOC teaches. >"If the Orthodox do not have to abide by a standard of Truth then they don’t have to actually teach “True” doctrine , right? " It's not that people don't have to abide by the truths laid out by ecumenical councils, it's that it's impossible to accurately determine what is actually correct among the myriad of possible interpretations of several matters, when we can't hold an ecumenical council to have the holy spirit work through and reveal the answer. Plus, the EOC functions primarily on apophatic theology, meaning that it's far more concerned with ruling out incorrect teachings, than it is in asserting "correct" teachings. This negation-based approach is important, because it keeps the EOC from just dictating specific interpretations willy-nilly without just rationale, for if there were not a strong enough case to back up a certain interpretation, they would run the risk of accidentally teaching something contrary to God's will, like the Pharisees ended up doing. >"And comparing the EO and RCC is not “apples and oranges” as there was 1 church until 1054. " First of all, it is widely acknowledged by both the EOC and RCC that the east and west started drifting apart much earlier than that. The first essay I linked in my previous response dates western differences of opinion starting at least as far back as the time of Cyprian of Carthage (~250AD). Secondly, last time I checked, we aren't in 1054 anymore, therefore there are still 1000 years of difference to account for, and a lot can (and did) happen in that time. >"Pretending that the Orthodox are some new species sounds a lot like how Protestants use magical and created histories and timelines that have no bearing in reality" You can only make such a claim because you're approaching it from the RCC interpretation of history, where 1/5 patriarchs going their own way somehow means the other 4 were the "schismatics". The Orthodox would argue that it was the west (RCC + Protestantism) that created alternate histories to suit their political agendas. And this is backed up by secular history, considering the huge influence the Frankish Empire had on the western half of the church: ruclips.net/video/DyuvkoiYlYk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Bqm8pt21cYg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/SvEX15vd82w/видео.html
bydloscum can you please rewrite the link to Seraphim Hamilton's video you are referring to here? Or at least the channel and title? The link doesn't work. Thank you
I've watched this debate 2x now. This was a tough one to parse out, but I think I see what's at the heart of the debate. Phronema. The RC mind operates on a different phronema than the Orthodox mind. This comes out in what I think is the heart of the debate, at the 2:18:00 mark. The Orthodox phronema is the core, the ground, by which the Orthodox interpret the historical data. And the Catholic phronema is their lens by which they interpret the historical data. Both Eric and Jay are working with the same historical data. But as Jay points out, evidence does not arrive uninterpreted. It is interpreted through a worldview. That worldview - another near synonym for phronema - is different in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Catholic phronema is one of a Thomistic, rationalistic, philosophical nature. That is why Eric is looking for a preponderance of evidence for the claim of papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility. However, as Jay points out - albeit poorly - the Orthodox phronema is different. It is a worldview that clings closely to the apostolic traditions and way of thinking. Jay tries to get at this with his claim for a coherence theory of epistemology. But I think that muddies and complicates the issue. The simpler way to argue is that the Orthodox mindset or phronema is one of decentralized authority, staunch adherence to apostolic tradition, and, as Orthodox scholar and presbytera, Dr. Constantinou says, a refusal to mix philosophy with theology. For the Orthodox, theology is not primarily philosophical or rational, but spiritual. As a result, the Orthodox mind isn't convinced even if Eric were to present 100 bishops and patriarchs who were in favor of papal universality and infallibility but only 1 bishop who was opposed to it. The only thing the Orthodox mind cares about is: was this the tradition, understanding, and way of life handed down by Jesus and the Apostles? Period. If the answer is no, the Orthodox doesn't care how many later bishops or fathers said yes. If 100 bishops said that the bishop of Rome had authority above all other bishops, but the Apostles taught a way of life of equality among bishops, the Orthodox are siding with the apostolic tradition. This difference of phronema or worldview is intensified at the 2 hour 18 min mark. Jay is basically arguing for the Orthodox phronema; that is, if it wasn't handed down by apostolic tradition, then it isn't valid - no matter who tries to enact it later on.
Ya and its a completely incoherent ecclesiology. You can't on one hand claim that your system has internal coherence and then when an issue arises that you don't agree with ("well they're wrong on x issue") claim that same source ('orthodoxy') has no coherency. It's almost childish in its flaw.
@@Christian_Conservative Right. I get that. But his critiques come off flat-footed when the position he's coming from is *itself* incoherent. The only thing he established in this debate is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
You can't on one end say, "this wasn't handed down by the Apostles" and then make your argument based on the Fathers, councils, etc and then when it's refuted redirect your inconsistent argument and say, "I don't care how many fathers, Bishops, etc taught what is Roman primacy; they're all wrong because Orthodox phronema." That's not logically coherent no matter how much you want to hide behind cool words (which I do admit they are cool) as a smokescreen. It's interesting that the very issue that Constantinople had with Rome at the schism with Rome claiming authority outside of its jurisdiction, theyre now using that same argument against Russia... It always goes back to that age-old question, "by what authority?"
Felipe Stancioli also there wasn’t supposed to be anything because we were doing a video and jay decided to come into the com box and asked to join impromptu. I asked can we do times and both wanted a casual non timed conversation.
Felipe Stancioli lastly we have offered jay the chance to do a formal debate on several occasions even before this video and each time he backs out. He wants unmoderated videos where he can over talk and jump all over the place.
Reason and Theology when i say that was supposed to be a civilized and serious debate, i'm saying because of the very topic. But i understand the circunstances that it is happening. Anyway is a great initiative and i appreciate it, thanks.
When I was listening to Jay Dyer's presentations in his channel and reading his article on the five simple reasons against the Papacy, I felt shaken and disturbed. I felt my faith in the Papacy was crumbling. Then luckily I saw this debate between Erick and Dyer. Erick restored my faith in the Papacy though I admit there must be a lot of grey areas in the history of the Papacy. As I have always believed that the Catholic faith is based on reason and logic apart from the Bible and Tradition, I was proved true by Erick from the style of his debate. On the other hand, most Protestants when they speak on any subject related to the Bible or Christian faith, they assume an air of infallibility. Dyer sounded very much like that, that his knowledge, his understanding, his conclusions, etc. were infallible. No one can debate with a person when that person assumes such conceited air of infallibility.
That's Dyer's job. This is why his RUclips channel is sitting pretty and why he's getting that sweet Alex Jones publicity. He has a semblance of legitimacy 'cause he's citing serious dogma. And then he goes and endorses criminals, sweettalks Nazis, preaches Pagan crap and hangs out with Satanists. Orthodox Christians don't do any of that. A part of his job is covering doubt in the Papacy by acting like a jackass 'cause most modern people are conditioned since childhood to drop any logical notion that comes with arrogant or rude behavior. Orthodox Christian officials behave almost the opposite of him. He's out there so you wouldn't hear serious arguments that make sense without being able to cop out and say "his behavior is horrible". An Orthodox Christian, for one, doesn't hide his church and doesn't go around debating without a publically verifiable blessing. And if he's rude in public to anyone - the blessing's revoked immediately and officially.
"My faith in the papacy"--this phrase sums up the entire problem right there. To be Orthodox you have to be Orthodox--to be Catholic you have to be a papist. Catholics have been largely reduced to apologists for the office of the papacy, to the detriment of their own orthodoxy.
@@jasonroberts2249 Faith in Jesus also includes faith in the Papacy. Jesus did not establish a Church without a visible leadership under Peter. Without the Papacy as it evolved in the Church from the very beginning, Christianity would have died a natural death after the Ascension of Jesus. The Christians who did not accept the Papacy have splintered into thousands of groups. I am glad that the Catholic Church is held together by the Papacy.
@@hippios No, sir. I have nothing to be conceited about. If I appear to be infallible, it is only because the Catholic Church is infallible in her teachings. No other denomination can claim such infallibility to teach authoritatively.
I am not Catholic nor Orthodox. Been studying, have attended and listened to both types of Churches, podcasts in accordance to the scriptures in hopes of finding a church to be a part of. Though I will say there are things I can't quite agree with yet or at all with the Catholic church.. I see more judgment and attack from the Orthodox Church that makes it hard to see Christ at work. Not trying to be judgmental just what I have experienced in many attempts to understand both sides.
Someone's behaviour does not mean that his belief system is wrong or not. If a hindu was nice as Erick, I wouldn't become hindu. Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic or are you considering to enter Orthodoxy?
I'd simply ask which church has covered up years and years and hundreds of abuses by clergy towards children. Which church had its monasteries shut down in Mexico because they were found to be places where monks were fornicating with nuns and murdering their offspring? Or the indigenous schools the catholic church ran in Canada where so many children disappeared. I'll wait..I'm sure that's the true church. What is that saying? You shall know them by their fruit. The fruit is rotten, from its lower most branches to the top. I forgot that there were never any Pope's with known harems and who conducted orgies in Vatican City. Silly me.🙄
Michael Lofton, in retrospect, man you were needed as a much more active moderator especially on Dyer's attitude. At some point Dyer needed to be told to take five minute break and come back in a better frame of mind. You had no obligation, moral or therwise, to put up with his immature performances. Erick was so patient and very generous both with his time and his active listening that it was incumbent on Dyer to reciprocate. When he repeatedly failed to do so, there really was not much point in continuing without at least imposing a break with conditions on his return. Thank you for keeping this encounter on the public record and for making the effort to attain a constructive use of time and effort for all involved, including us in your audience. Thank very much.
About 2 hours in Jay says outright that he will never be convinced to Erick's argument. He really could have saved everyone a lot of time if he had led with that.
Jay is not giving historic evidence for his argument on the restoration of Athanasius. It may be just that his only talking about a later much development in the Orthodox Church. I do not know if he realizes that he is speaking from Silence. He lost the argument and unprepared.
ok, so he asks for evidence for Papal claims in the first 1000 years, when Ybarra provides evidence Jay just says that "actually they were wrong" even if comes from eastern Saints and Ecumenical Councils. That's a big WFT hahahah. This is a SUPER subjective counter argument. In this case how can I be sure that Jay is no commiting error right now saying those things about Orthodoxy if orthodoxy don't even have object authority to claim anything? They error all the time according to him.
Wait, so if saints and councils and everyone can be wrong, then wouldn't a council condemning a Pope be wrong also? Jay seemed to basically appeal to epistemic nihilism to deny the scaffolding of Eric's case, but is swift to change to epistemic certainty when it suits him.
I would say the same could be said for Eric's position. "Reading into" what the councils were saying, thinking, etc. with the idea that Papal Infallibility is the correct dogma is just as wrong.
@@grixlipanda287 no, no contradiction, if You see it from the Orthdox perspective. Eric's case is to read now into then, where as the Orthdox perspective is to read it as it was. The Bishop of Rome was given honor, but nothing else. When someone made a plea to Rome, someone else makes a plea to Alexandria or Constantinople, etc. Of course they would want the Bishop of one of the largest cities in the world to side with them. That proves the importance and honor of the Bishopric, but does not prove anything further. The Catholic idea of "seeds" of doctrine is something that the Orthdox reject, preferring to follow what has always been.
@@grixlipanda287 lol no- of course you have to talk about the present day dogma because papal dogma as it is today is presented as having always been true so all Jay wanted was for Eric to show that papal dogma with all of its bells and whistles has been consistently present from the beginning because Jay argues it hasn’t and instead has been evolving from an honor into infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Eric kept trying to point single moments in time when someone honored or appealed to the Bishop of Rome and infer from that all of the rest of papal dogma but the problem is that actually proves Jays point about the dogma evolving from simple honor and appeals into universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
@@athanasioscyril6467 I agree with you 100%. It went from 6th ecumenical council to Vatican II To Mortalium Animos (related) to 8th ecumenical council (869).
Dyer is clueless about the nature of papal infallibility. The Church doesn't teach that popes can't be wrong, and Bellarmine, for ex., has much to say about the papacy and heresy. Nowhere does the Church teach that Saints are always right and never err. Further, the Church isn't "built on one guy; it's built on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium -- of which, the papacy is one part. Dyer needs to grow some humility.
Oh. Another thing. The fact that Jay Dyer was upset doesn't prove he's wrong. Please. Let's be honest about it. He should have been a bit calmer but, please, his arguments are solid. We are talking about a person who has immense knowledge and dedication to the Lord.
Jay didn’t realize it but he was arguing that Erick HAD to strawman himself and defend papal infallibility ONLY in the way that JAY deemed acceptable and not in the opposing sides strongest version of the argument. But yet he called Erick “not a good faith actor”. This is exactly how the dawah Muslims argue. This is exactly how the dawah Muslims say that Christians are “running” from the argument. When it in actuality they are the ones that don’t want to hear the other side’s argument.
When Polycarp met Marcion the heretic in Rome in the second century Marcion asked if Polycarp had heard of him. Polycarp answered "Yes, I know you very well, you firstborn son of the devil." I think when speaking with those who teach falsehood/heresy then all manners can go out the window.
Papal infallibility. I’d point to the miracle of ‘Our Lady of Lourdes’ where Mary identified herself as “I am the immaculate conception“ which was four years after the dogma was declared by the Pope.
My question would be :" Wouldn't it be great to have a miracle of Mary stating herself what the Pope set as dogma 4 years before?" Why did it take so many hundreds of year to find out the immaculate conception was true, and then miracoulously, Mary showed up to restate it? Why isn't this miracle prior to any decision?
@@CPATuttle Immaculate Conception... 1. 3 saints of your Church deny it: Augustine, Bonaventura and D'Aquino 2. If it is a dogma of Vrigin Mary, why did it take so long? 3. The only reason dogmas appear is when there is a stringent conflict on the issue and it has to be settled. It wasn't the case for that then 4. With this dogma, you make Virgin Mary from the Great Example, the Great Exception. Why is that? Well, because she didn't start the race from the Start line. She had an impossibility to sin, therefore, nothing she made is worthy of praise. It's like winning the lottery but having to choose between winning tickets. Immaculate Conception is like cheating. Therefore, she is neither a human like us, nor a God like her Son. The real merit is when you start with the same measure and you achieve something great. 5. If God has been conceived on that specific date and the erase of the original sin happened ar that moment or before, why did He decide to erase the original sin prior to his Conception and Birth, like 15 years prior? It makes no sense.
lol the most hilarious part of the debate for me is 1:25:37 where Erick says that Rome had an appellate jurisdiction in response to Jay's claim about Canon 6 of Nicaea and Jay's response was "that's not infallibility" as if that's what Erick was trying to prove let alone make an argument for the papacy
As a Catholic from a far off region away from Europe, I am very grateful that I have met the Second Person of the Trinity and have a Church that guides and supports me. If it weren't for those Catholic missionaries probably I will be out headhunting, and Orthodox would still be nitpicking over all the issues. Say what you will about the Protestants, but they have the same willingness to offer their lives that other may know Christ.
Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic or are you considering to enter Orthodoxy?
@@pavelcrestin1quit spamming the same comment . I tried orthodoxy and it wasnt for me one church treated me like a stranger and pushed me to the corner of the room and the russian orthodox church simply bragged about who was a cradle orthodox in the church and were fascinated when they got in Eastern European Orthodox members moving to the parish but also shoved me aside for more “orthodox” members even though i was a serious inquirer . The priest was nice however but no one including him gave me a good reason why catholicism is false .
I'm not a Christian and was really lost for a lot of this debate, but, I understood what Jay was saying about the paradigm issue, and Erick didn't understand it at all, which was a bit frustrating. Jay seems to argue that the Orthodox position is a coherentist sort of view on epistemology based on overall paradigmatic worldviews , rather than an infinitist or foundationalist. That's very interesting. Although, it would be helpful to see where exactly this is taught in the Orthodox tradition, just so I can understand exactly how this is understood. I would be very surprised if the eastern Patristics were actually talking about these kinds of things; I normally associate this kind of thinking with the pre modern philosophers (Spinoza, Hegel, etc). Very excited for Jay's debate with Dillhunty.
You're right that it's a peculiar feature of modern philosophy. You should also check out Fr. Schooping's book to see how disconnected even St. Irenaeus is from these modern philosophers you note and how weak and limited in the Patristic sampling the author's argument is in this book. St. Irenaeus also gives an (admittedly underdeveloped) argument from causality (paragraph 4 "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching"), absolutely contradicting the claim he was a presuppositionalist in the likes of the Calvinist tradition, e.g. Van Til. The ancients, as a whole, do not understand reality in this way.
@@JayDyer Keep repeating the mantra, bruh. "Muh Pope in the mosque". Maybe you will see the light that Al Ghazali created to get in direct contact with god, borrowed by Palamas.
@@JayDyer I've read or am currently working through all the materials you recommend, which is how I know they don't say what you claim they say, for example the synodical letter of St. Sophronius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and Fr. Schooping's book above plus my own studies on De Potentia Dei about 'Rabbi Moses' along with the writings of St. John Damascene. I encourage others to check your sources. I simply don't know what you're talking about by 'personal dirt' and I will gladly apologize but I don't know what exactly you're accusing me of.
@@JayDyer Calm down, bruh. Lay down the LSD and realize that this was already debunked. Nobody cares about your UZI word salad. The documentation is clear. St John of Damascus didn't defend that. That's a very particular Lossky point of view in trying to find a justification for Palamas "orthodox doctrines"(In Lossky paradigm) in the earlier fathers. Only the souls you're leading astray believes in you.
Knowledge puffs up. Some may win an argument but loose the battle... Though I see Jay Dyer has lost in this argument, but there is no Love behind his demeanor and tone and appeals.
I love seeing all the butt hurt people in the comment section saying how mean Jay was instead of why he is wrong. Like this isn't an Alcholol anonymous session, it's a debate between two men, relax.
Jay is wrong because he has no standard of certainty and no consistency. The problem with his attitude goes beyond him being mean, and is even more so about him being unable to have any real dialogue, instead relying on insults, interrupting and ignoring everything Erick said.
2:58:00 Jay, a claim is not an argument. You have not given any major or minor premises in defense of your paradigms assertion. How can you not understand this, after your graduate coursework in philosophy?!?!?
He's a presuppositionalist, he goes on about paradigms, paradigms, but here he doesn't as you pointed out go into why his paradigm is right. The whole presup view is PRESUPPOSING your view as true.
Wait is Jay Dyer a pressuppositionalist if he denies foundationalism? He keeps on talking about paradigms. Maybe retained more from his reformed days than we thought.
@Poltiticslogicallyreformed. presuppositional apologetics confuses epistemology and ontology. There need to be some ideas that aren't paradigmatic, otherwise we couldn't communicate, to say the least. We couldn't know anything if all knowledge was paradigmatic. In fact, progressive ideology and prepositional apologists use the same arguments for their ideas. And yes they're contradictory. Classical foundationalism says there are things that can be known apart from any paradigm, while presuppositionalism says your paradigm colors all of your knowledge.
@@MrRezitinas Can you elaborate a little more on this? I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the transcendental argument but I'm not fully understanding your comment:
Is jay dyer married? Because I know that Ybarra is married and has 6 kids. And this level of love and patience for dyer. God judges us on how we behave. Our religious expression is a means by which we instantiate our behaviors. I’m feeling good as a Catholic here.
2:30:00 Jay totally misinterprets the phrase "ordinary and universal magisterium"...that specifically refers to the bishops throughout the world agreeing upon something while not being explicitly united together at an ecumenical council.
I want to give my experience going on Jays space last weekend. I am a Protestant, and I was arguing for our inclusion in the church of Christ. Immediately he accuses me of being someone else, and that really threw me off because I was already nervous. Then came an onslaught of questions which he never allowed me to answer in detail. Then when I asked him to provide info on a subject I didn’t know about, he muted me. I love the church, both Catholic and Orthodox, but I was very disappointed in his behavior because I did look up to him.
That just scratches the surface of his disturbing behavior. I have stories for days.
@@reasonandtheology I can see why you guys don't want to debate him anymore. It's not just about him being mean, it's about him being unstable, and not letting you get a word in without interrupting, it's rather frustrating.
He talks over people he doesn’t know how to debate or have a conversation. He needs a moderator to shut his mouth when he’s out of line
@@OrthoNektarios This does not excuse or prove anything, at least you admit he lacks real fruit
@@OrthoNektarios There is no need to answer any of his questions on the historical data of Catholicism and Orthodox, because it’s irrelevant, I would of split from your gathering before the Catholic Church. A sleazy salesman creates problems and sells you the solution. That’s what Jay Dyer is a sleazy salesman, he should sell used beat up cars, his followers would buy it
I was an Anglo catholic when I first watched this debate. Got interested in EO and Jay Dyer was a man I loved to listen too. This was the first time I could honestly say Jay lost a debate ( and arguably the only time I’ve seen so far). A few months later I decided to become a catholic. This was not because of this video , as my pride blinded me to the truth. I can only thank our lady for guiding me to the correct church when I asked her and for god giving me the grace to ask in the first place. In the 2021 Easter vigil I was received into the ordinariate of our lady of walsingham. Thanks for the video chaps. Still love jay dyers work , but I think Ybarra is by far the better historian. I know am a subscriber and a regular listener to R and T . Michael gives one of the most nuanced approaches to dealing with the current crises as opposed to Taylor Marshall and the like. God bless
So you think participating in a church that perpetuates ecumenism, unitarianism, gay and lesbian preachers, transgender jesus, etc is the true church?
This guy is a better historian than Jay? Jays massive body of work alone makes him one of the most read historians available online, and thats excluding his exhaustive knowledge on theology, philosophy, metaphysics, i could go on. Ybarra couldnt shine his shoes.
@@countryboyred But part of the bad behavior was not letting the man finish his response, sure he had a tendency to repeat the same thing over and over again before actually getting to his point but Jay would never actually let him get to his point. I wonder why they never did another debate because I think it could be very enlightening
Someone's behaviour does not mean that his belief system is wrong or not. If a hindu was nice as Erick, I wouldn't become hindu. Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic?
I honestly don’t think he is that intelligent. He talks like he’s reading off a flowchart stuck in a feedback loop. His strategy for proving the papacy in the first millennium is ludicrous, if it existed it’s functioning would be thoroughly explicated in canon law of the time but such sources do not exist. All he can do is point to scattered minor attempts at papal supremacy or otherwise intensely read into documents with their contexts ignored. Jay totally won this & I’m not even Christian I’m atheist
I'm here from a comment on Jay Dyer vs Nuck Duentes. Thank you, my dude, who left that comment. I am now a fan of Erick Ybarra.
I wish I would have listened to this, when it happened. Sorry to say, this sort of behavior is common online and as well in many parishes. Erick conducted himself well. I am truly so blessed to have found such good teachers as you and people like Erick. God bless you both.
Can we talk about the irony of Dyer talking about Ybarra being in a church that is bad for peoples’ souls while he’s acting in a completely uncharitable and disrespectful manner?
Let me talk to peter who called people dogs real quick.
@@tactfulrogue Peter also denied Jesus. The apostles were not impeccable, not every action of theirs should be emulated.
@@basedsigmalifter9482so why do you expect dyer to be impeccable?
I like jay but bro wasnt letting errick talk .like let him make his point.@@ConradThePalamite
@@tactfulrogue Jesus also called people dogs, what your point here??
What’s so frustrating about debating orthodoxy is that you can show them evidence from their own patriarch and their own saints to disprove their claims and all they have in rebuttal is “we don’t believe patriarchs are without error” it’s absurd
@@Theparishioner_ because we don't believe it, there is no one that is infallible, but Vatican 1 says that the pope can't defect, that is your problem
Also you saying that just proves protestants right because the true church doesn't exist and we have all defected
Man, after 20 years of online debate, Jay unfortunately reminds me of myself. This has been pretty eye opening to my own habits. Excellent job, Ybarra. Exposed to me personally how much growth I need.
Wonderful humility brother
Using tone policing to determine whos right is so pathetic.
@@SlZIJI Why? Acting like you’re on the verge of a crash out isn’t well adjusted or hyper-successful behavior.
@@williamcoreli6248 Regardless of Jay's attitude it doesn't take away from his arguments is what i interpreted SIZIJI to be saying. I would agree with that statement as well
@@zeman429 His arguments are him sperging out and calling names. He got wrecked
The Pope can be wrong, Orthodox Saints can be wrong, Orthodox Councils can be wrong, Ecumenical Councils can be wrong, but not Jay Dyer. Impossible.
you are the only commenter who seems to have summarized this whole mess correctly 😂
Yes a bunch of quote mines mean your position is right. I guess that means all the Protestant denominations are right too since they can quote-mine almost as food as Ybarra 😂
Ecumenical councils condemned the Pope BTW. Vatican 1 and 2 are built on a stack of cards and if you remove 1 the whole house falls down.
Wait, I agree Dyer's not charitable.
But isn't the issue both EO and RC have the same issue?
1:45:50-1:49:20 ish is really helpful on both EO an RC admitting eccunumenical councils having reception theory that can develop things dialectically over time. Magisterial development and theoretical infallibility, with the unique infallible authority of the pope in the system, and the impossibility of the papal structure failing, is similar to the impossibility of the orthodox structure failing.
2:13:58 - the whole epistemology thing is great
I am raised Catholic and became Orthodox. I have been called back to Catholicism but had some confusion internally that I have been working through. I watched this to gain some perspective. Erick was a knowledgeable gentleman. Jay’s demeanor and temperament does not represent Orthodoxy well, and has turned me off to hearing any point he may have. Erick’s knowledge, and demeanor lends to a holy and peaceful perspective. You will know them by their fruits. Thank you Erick. Not by your knowledge, but by your example, I am coming closer to a decision . May God bless you and your ministry. Also discontinuing my subscription to Jays channel. This isn’t a tit for tat action, this is to teach a lesson that poor behavior will not be tolerated, and that there are honest seekers questioning the future of their souls who are looking toward men like him for answers, and are greeted with his poor behavior. Mr. Dyer, your behavior has repercussions. May Lord have Mercy.
raised Catholic, left, went to the protestants for awhile, and contemplated orthodox, but returned to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and now going to the TLM and loving it. this catholic/orthodox struggle is the devil trying to destroy us. Viva Cristo Rey!
Dont agree with your reasoning. You basically saying because of Jays behavior you didn't listen to any of his points and like how ybarra conducted himself so you accept what he is saying. This somehow leads you to being roman catholic. If individual who was catholic who met a Muslim who was nice to them and their catholic family was not nice is it good reasoning to become Muslim? You need to listen to Jays actual points and understand them and then make decision and take out emotions.
@@randomperson-gp8ph It's all in the delivery, people won't listen if you are behaving like a jerk no matter who solid your argument is. If you'e an atheist who cares but if you are a follower of Christ we have a responsibility to imitate Him in the world. Christ is supposed to transform our entire being, behave charitably in interaction with each other in deed and words, show the fruits of that conversion. Eriks behaviour impacted him more. He didn't say he was returning to Catholicism because of one debate. He clearly says he's CLOSER to a decision, he's on a journey, the debate was just one step on the path. He was a subscriber to Jays channel so he has had ample opportunity to listen to his arguments and watch his behaviour before the debate.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker He literally says he has not listened to any points jay dyer made because of his demeanor. It is not reasonable. No matter how you try to justify it. A wise man can even learn from a fool. Jay is far from a fool. Would it not be reasonable to say I listened to both debaters. After understanding both their arguments then decide where the truth lies.
"left orfodoxy cuz jay dyer mean!" you cant make this stuff up lmfao
It seems to me, Jay would never admit the papacy was true no matter how many historical documents Erick presents regardless... I can understand the position he takes, but it doesn't prove the papacy wrong. Hearing Orthodox saints appeal to the papacy is pretty much as good of an argument you can make without literally going back in time and personally speaking to people.
"You talk in slow motion dude, come on" ~ 2:07:39
I don't know much about Jay Dyer, but as an Orthodox Christian myself, I can tell from this debate that he's not a respectful guy. Constant interruptions, ad hominem, strawmanning, etc.
Congrats to Erick for being able to make it through Jay acting like a child, I know I could never. The only thing anyone could gain from this is that Jay can’t get anything done with his antics. I pray he gets better and we can achieve something with him.
Now I just heard Jay call him an idiot. What a pathetic excuse of an apologist. Pray that God will show mercy on Jay and reveal His love
@@hoshuajofstetter784 He was arguing in bad faith and being an idiot
Erick, you debated well against a narcissist. I found Jay a while back, listened to a bit of his material, got turned off by his prideful rhetoric, and quickly decided to stop listening to him...till this. This confirmed my prior decision. Thank you for your patience and respectfulness. You came out far ahead in this debate.
Jay can't stop talking for 5 seconds or stop bringing up V2 for 5 seconds
'cause Ybarra's audience obsessed over Vatican Two.
Thank you Erick. All my aspirations of considering Orthodoxy has vanished. Completely
Come to Orthodoxy.
BECOME ORTHODOX
@@Sebastian-dk6te why
Jays points were unmet by Erick even if Erick was far better behaved. I was expecting Erick to win this debate and especially after I saw how Jay was acting and how it started off with the issue of debate topic but once I focused in on the actual issues discussed Jay made excellent points that Erick couldn’t refute. Papal doctrine, which is central to Catholicism, evolved over time into the beast it is today. Erick pointed out incidences when the Bishop of Rome was respected and honored but never any time greater than most honored bishops and certainly no evidence for what is currently taught as eternal and Catholic papal dogma.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk so your making a decision based on how some people behave?? The goal is to find the truth not who acts better..i know many atheist who are thr most polite people i have ever met.. doest that mean i will abandon Christianity and my God for them???
why didn't Jay dyer just say he would never accept any evidence at all that Rome has the authority it claims
The supposed evidence is very dubious and he openly listed forgeries it's all based on.
Just because the man is a fraud and a douchebag doesn't mean he hasn't stated this.
@@NikolaAvramov but the whole point of the question Erick posed is so that he knows what evidence he thinks proves his case based on that criteria. You can then discuss and reject/accept the evidence.
That would be too straight forward and honest for him.
@@Silverhailo21 Exactly. I watched the whole Jay convo and was literally cringing because of his dishonesty
@@TheChunkyCrusader Same. The dude is a fraud and knows it. Notice how he freaked out when he was asked about the date of his "conversion". Dude couldn't even wait two seconds to hear Eric out, immediately started counter signaling because his track record is absolute garbage.
You are obviously sharper Mr. Ybarra than Jay that's why someone like him gets easily irritated and evidently disturbed in reasoning with you. Keep up the good work for the Catholic Faith. God Bless you so much.
Jay would predictably claim that Ybarra didn't understand the premise (about Vatican 1) except that those parameters, in Vatican 1, including ex Cathedra statements and matters of faith and morals (ordinary magisterium) do allow for errors to be made. Such significant errors that antipopes like Honorius and Liberius could be condemned as anti-popes by the Catholic Church. He even admitted it at 2:29:58 during the debate.
The last two hours were literally this: Erick- What kind of evidence I can use to convince you of the papacy. Jay- none, only coherency. Erick- ok, but if I can’t use the church fathers, saints, ecumenical councils nor local sinods what kind of evidence I can use. Jay- none , only coherency.
Scriptures man
Scriptures which are actual recorded history of christ and Christians
ON MARY BEEN PRAISED AND VENERATED
Luke 11:27-28
"As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”(This is Jesus downplaying the importance of mary in bringing him to earth)
Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger" (in reference to mary been falsely called as queen of heaven shows the worship or reverence of these godess is ancient and pagan)
ON PRAYER IN GENERAL
Matthew 6:9 ""This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name" (this is Jesus teaching his disciples on prayer nowhere does he mention the importance of praying to his mother for graces or protection)
Ephesians 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people." (This is one of Paul's numerous teachings on prayer there's just no sign of rosary or mary)
ON MARY BEEN SEEN AS MEDIATOR OR AS A NECCESSARY INTERCESSOR
1 timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
Romans 8:26 " Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"
Hebrews 7:25 "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."
ON PRAYING TO DEAD PEOPLE AMD ADRESSING SAINTHOOD
Romans 1:7 "To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Shows who is a saint. Its not some process the Vatican makes. Its everyone who loves God and Beleives in Jesus christ)
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Thessalonians 4:17 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"(shows there is no one alive in any heaven. This is paul speaking years after the resurrection of christ. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about this too)
ON WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE SAVED
Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"(this is wjat is needed baptism is the final confirmation. No where do we see you need to be baptized first to be saved or you need to be baptized by any specific church)
Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned" (as you can see Beleiving is the emphasis and tue consequences of not Beleiving is the main topic not being baptized. When you Beleive tobbe baptized woukd be the least of problems)
Matthew 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(He gave this commission to his disciples that is all who were following him. Not to any church organization)
ON THE MEANING OF THE CHURCH, WHAT THE CHURCH DID WHEN THEY MET AND CHURCH ADMINISTRATION
1 Corinthians12:13 "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (This talks about how one becames part of the body of christ and that is true his spirit. How does one receive the spirit, acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit")
Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (This is quite clear)
1 Corinthians 14:26 "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (This is what we should do when we come together we don't see this in the RCC and to be fair many protestant and orthodox churches as well, paul teaches we all have different gifts and different things to contribute to the growth of one another. Today the opposite is the case. Its usually one head man or gis subordinates in different branches of an organization calling the shots)
Titus 1:5-6" For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient"
1 timothy 3:1-6" This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity"(requirements for being a bishop/elder of a local congregation. No where do we see that they must not be married or celibate. This is falsehood the Catholic Church forces on its clergy(whom they call priest btw)
Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.(Like many of the protestant churches the Catholic Church barely or doesn't recognize these gifts. Instead it has its strange hierarchical structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and finally the pope who has a pagan title pontifux maximus and vicar of christ meaning representative of Christ. This is who Jesus said was his representative on earth. John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" no one man is representative of christ only his spirit. The argument of Peter is forced in. Peter was a spokesman quite alright but he never assumed any authority as head of christs church that title belongs to Christ alone Collosians 1:17-18 "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent" Theres little evidence peter was in rome and peter for sure wasn't called papa nor did he have a papal palace not did he decree papal bulls. These are all strange to the new testament church)
Finally the churches in the new testament were local congregations with elders or bishops they did not have any subordination to rome or some pope somewhere. They only had subordination to Christ. The bishop or elder was appointed for guiding the people in the right direction.
@@jzak5723 Well unfortunately sir. Christ never founded an institution. I beleive this is the point many people in maby denominations especially catholics get it wrong. They see the church as some organization with a ceo on top. If we are true to scriptures well realize that the church is a body of people(ecclesia... Called out ones) who have faith and trust in christ will christ himself as the head over his body reigning in every one of us though the spirit. Yes we come together in fellowship ot strengthen and encourage one another and yes in our locak congregations for administration purposes like paul teaches in 1 timothy we appoint a bishop/elder who is a great example and should be married(catholic church teaches otherwise) we see that these its just for administrative purposes with the elder not answering to some chief elder or archbishop and all the local congregations in unison answering to one congregation and their bishop in rome as pope. See the difference there
Hope you see it.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask
@@jzak5723 Unfortunately you strawman me
Every argument you've listed i didn't make and bever implied.
We have actual Christians in scriptures ; the acts of the apostles and the letters of paul. Their example is enough. I do not support the many man made denominational church institutions or organizations we have(Catholic, orthodox, protestant, JW, mormon). All are man made attempts to recreate Christianity in their image that's why we see ego battles, we see articles if dogmas each Duffering and enforced on the people with severe consequences to keep people loyal and enslaved to them
I realized that when someone challenged me to actually read the scriptures especially the new testament as an actual historical document and record of what my lord Jesus christ did and taught and what his immediate apostles taught Beleived and practiced.
So you want to know how Christians met and organized themselves without denominations amd roman catholic institutions. Read the scriptures i gave to you earlier, read titus, 1 timothy, acts of the apostles read them in context without any external influence
@@jzak5723 No disrepect but you have proved nothing except my point. The scriptures you quoted are clear you don't need my interpretation or your interpretation. Let's not distract ourselves here.
1St timothy 3
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
This is clearl. Also the argument was yhat the roman catholic church teaches otherwise. The Catholic Church says for you to be a "priest" i quote it beacause we don't see priests in the new testament you must be celibate. Priests caught not celibate are stripped of their priesthood. This is a masive contradiction to what we see in scriptures.
I'm actually suprised you only picked on this point. I know why?? Like many humans you don't want to be wrong nobody wants to be wrong there's a strong attraction to what we have held and known, there is always fear of losing that identity. So you decided to pick on what you thought was your best argument which by the way isn't even right and doesn't change the point of the main argument. I sincerely understand was once in that boat i held on deeply to what i have been taught as doctrine strongly until i was challenged to actually read the new testament without any bias or any group's dogma or interpretation. Reading the new testament as an historical record of what christ and his apostles taught beleived and practiced you cannot just see roman catholicism or any man made denominational group or institution like orthodoxy protestantism, JW, MORMONISM there
I’m afraid that my pride has kept me away from the thought of the Catholic Church being right.. this is eye opening to me that I might’ve acted this way. I was a nondenominational Christian praying to God for wisdom and guidance because I want to be closer to God. I was considering orthodoxy but after this I need to research more..
amen,
if I may recommend, pinesap makes great videos
Are you saying that because you saw someone arguing the Orthodox position be "mean," you have to reevaluate Orthodoxy? You will find much stronger language in Paul's epistles and the Church Fathers. Are you simply going to ignore the glaring inconsistency between Vatican 1 and 2 (and Ybarra concedes) that Jay points out because Ybarra continually missed Jay's points for 2 hours? I can agree that it would be helpful for Jay to be more patient at times, but don't also miss that Ybarra seems to miss the point so much that it seems like he is not arguing in good faith.
I also hesitated reverting to Catholicism, from EO, out of pride. Now I’m about to baptize my daughter in the Catholic Church. Praise be to God!
Orthodox apologists need to denounce Dyer, not only is he the king of red herrings but his aggressive attitude is quite unbecoming.
Yet multiple bishops are now endorsing him and joining in on his material. Tells you alot about the state of Orthodoxy
@@reasonandtheology Really because he attack the very christ like monk Fr Seraphim of Mull. I lost all my taste for him. FYI I am Orthodox Christian myself.
@@MrJMB122 Why did he attack Father Serafim? I love him. I can see why certain Christians who twist Christ to conform to their worldly right wing politics might be stirred to anger by some of what he says.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 That is exactly a when it comes to orthodoxy were still young country you see that online.
@@MrJMB122 Yeah. It makes me sad to see but that's exactly how the devil works. All worldly group identities have enough to appeal to good conscience but then divide and conquer.
I just watched this debate and I applaud Eric for his superb articulation and above all he showed sheer spiritual maturity in comparison to Jay Dyer.
Unfortunately many people here fall under the school of thinking that whoever is calmer wins the debate. It kinda reminds me of the Trump and Biden debates back in 2020, where people thought a brainless Biden won because he was less aggressive. Unfortunately the same thing is happening here. People are missing the reason why Jay is short and frustrated and its because in this video, as well as most Jay's debates. The person debating is not actually addressing Jay rebuttals and is talking in circles to avoid a direct debate with Jay. Anyways I know theres mostly Catholics here but that's the truth of it.
@@chriseko5090 Jay made no rebuttals. He asserted repeatedly, contrary to the evidence, that the claims about Rome were of a generic appellate nature and then proceeded to ramble for minutes on end throwing out a grab-bag of pop-apologist arguments against Catholicism until Erick reigned him back in over and over. It was embarassing
I’m currently an ex-Protestant weighing the EOC and RCC and this discussion really helped a lot. Jay dyer was my main source of Orthodoxy and I feel Eric did very well against him! Though Jay does put out some interesting stuff about globalism and new world order stuff I think I’ll have to look elsewhere for orthodox theological talks. Maybe just convert to Catholicism already
If I might add anything, this kind of philosophical historical stuff will go on forever and ever. What's important to know is that you can never really be certain of something unless God gives you a glimpse into his fullness. That being said, the best place you can learn about the Orthodox faith, and the Catholic faith, for that matter, is simply by going and experiencing the two of them. The intellect alone won't take you to where you need to go! But if you're looking for more digestable content, I'd suggest with the youtube channel theoria. It helped me a lot during my conversion.
And what about you know?
If you email youtuber truthbetold7, he will send you gratis a lengthy patristic book about the papacy issues based strictly from Church Fathers. Keep praying and discerning and you may be closing in on the truth sooner than you think.
Ew world order ? From the conspiracy of the SDA? Goodness 😅😅😅. People now( atleast in Philippines,specially those protestants, and cults) are blaming Catholics for the covid 19 and the injection is now starting for that ONE WORLD RELIGION 🤣🤣🤣.
@@johncollorafi3548 I actually converted maybe 2 months after this video! Truthbetolds conversion in late 2019 led to the end of my entertaining eastern orthodoxy. His brief talk on Vladimir soloveyevs book, Russia and the universal church, led me to read the book which was the final nail in the coffin that put it all to rest.
Strangely , truthbetold7 seems to have returned to eastern orthodoxy. Hopefully he returns! I mean, every problem he used to rightly complain about within orthodoxy is still present in the EO church. It's actually worse.
Yes, I believe I've taken a look at the book In a short video of his. Does he still share the book even though he's turned from catholicism?
Jay just kept rambling about paradigms and not answering hard evidence for Catholicism.
'hard evidence' lol
@@rohan7224 Irrelevant all the same.
You can't just break dogma and creed and then say "I found a 6th century writing that says I can so I must've been right" and consider it hard evidence.
Well, you can, but that's literally heretical behavior. The definition of it, in fact. Pretentious cherrypicking.
@@rohan7224 hard evidence, like not a single one of the 7 ecumenical councils stating that the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ and he has infallibility.
@@wp7896 yes, hard evidence
Glad I found this channel. I am an EO considering Catholicism. Jay unfortunately acted very immature here and somewhat ruined the video. I am very interested in watching more content from Erick now, as I had never seen him before. Erick seems extremely well informed and rational.
Grant Michael I highly highly recommend his work. I’m a Catholic convert from Orthodoxy and I wish I’d had his content at the time I was converting! Steve Ray’s Upon This Rock book is also something I highly highly recommend on this issue
@@stefanienicholas8071 I will have to check out the book! I am curious to talk to other EO to Catholic converts! What was your experience like?
Grant Michael If you look up my name on RUclips there’s a good One Peter Five podcast where I talk more about it. :)
Grant Michael Well if you are willing to read that book read the papacy by abbe guettee, before you make a decision . It converted me from Roman Catholicism to the Orthodox Church. I don’t agree with Jays actions at times and would love it if he was more humble but his talks on the theology of the Orthodox Faith are solid.
@@stefanienicholas8071 great book
Pride is not a virtue, Jay. You’re anger is not in defense of Christ. It’s in defense of your ego.
You've never gotten frustrated with someone who argues in bad faith? You've blowing his reaction out of proportion while also making a strawman.
@@SlZIJIhe does it all the time
It's the frustration of a very high IQ individual when the other person is setting up straw men...
It seems like his frustration is with the mental gymnastics and willful blindness of catholics who refuse to see the truth.
You can tell who is a father in this debate. Eric has the patience to get through difficult emotional discussions, Jay will have his patience tested if he becomes a father one day. Blessing to all of yall.
Erick exhibits the patience of a saint in this debate.
Not really, he just purposely ignores most of what jay says and says the same already refuted arguments over and over
Erick was a saint In this debate.
True. This is the difference between the spirit of evangelizing (Erick) and proselytizing (Jay). Erick's patience and goodwill is far more reminiscent of the Gospel than Jay's anger and marketing tactics.
I'm known for my patience but I'd be cursing his entire genealogy if he was that imature to me. Gish Galloped the whole time
@@om-qg7ju Example?
Jay was not prepared for this at all. He relied on little more than bullying and changed the subject entirely.
It's the frustration of a very high IQ individual when the other person is setting up straw men...
Jay simply needs to repent of his lack of self-control. He is the man with the unbridled tongue, of whom James speaks. May God grant him a new heart
Like the sacred heart?😭💀
@@jesusisthetruegod777no, ezekiel 36
Jay’s attitude is very protestant, saying that we have changed the position of The Holy Spirit to that of the Pope!?! Even if he now considers himself a Russian Orthodox, his old protestant attitudes are still there towards the Catholic Church. The Early Church Fathers, who he has read, a-test to the primacy of the Bishop Of Rome, but as an ex-protestant, who will never accept The Papacy, he seems the only Church he could be part of with valid Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments could only be one that would continue the protestant tradition of anti-pope.
Acts 15, Peter had the last word, the scripture says he “ROSE UP”, this is very important, because that meant he had authority and would speak authoritatively and he did.
"Pope vs. Anti-Pope" is a Western Christian thing.
You're all stuck in this endless dialectic, while Orthodoxy has deeper roots than that 11th century heresy made official.
In fact, its attitude is Wholistic.
This is why Orthodox Christians avoide the capitalists vs. communists crap or liberals vs. nazis crap and gets accused of being all of those even though none of these shoes fit.
There's a profound difference that you all just miss 'cause you're stuck in this dialectic indoctrination.
@@NikolaAvramov they'll never understand it brother, they're too busy seeing reality through their narrow filter.
@@NikolaAvramov
Lol you're blindly repeating Jay Dyer's hodgepodge without making any convincing point. If you have nothing of value to say then just stfu
@@jzak5723 Peter called the church council and the ideas of the subject to be decided by God enlightening Peter through divine locution
"early church fathers attest to the primacy of the bishop of Rome" lmao nobody denies primacy, it's about the papal supremacy that is not present ☠️
Jay clearly has an Ego the size of Jupiter 🙄
As an Orthodox of 13 years whose been through undergrad & graduate Seminary, I recognize the straw arguments and selective readings of church history the Orthodox use.
I hope to be received into the Catholic Church very soon.
Raymond Dunn thank you; I was received into the CC on December 29’th; so glad & thankful to be home.
Praise God! Have you been received yet with the whole COVID-19 craziness?
Quoc Pham I was received on December 29’th 2019
PerennialThoughts Welcome home!
Hello perennial thoughts. Is there a way I can contact you?
Jay needs to take a chill pill and let other people talk.
In the debate he let Ybarra spam and stall for an hour after losing it.
How long would you last?
@@NikolaAvramov
Spam what?
Jay is notorious for that.
@@tryhardf844
Ybarra spammed with pointless general insincere nice gestures, "I hear you, Jay", "We can talk about that some other time", and historical cases that were supposed to build his case through induction in order to avoid the obvious inconsistencies between Popes and their decrees.
Dyer isn't notorious for those. He's notorious for rude insults, sticking to a narrow topic of his expertise on theology, "Chad" philosophy and its implicit social Darwinism and trash talk with innuendo and dubious relations with the Orthodox Church.
@@NikolaAvramov insincere by your standards, not by Gods. you are judging and God said not to do that. At the end of the day Orthodox have a basic problem with authority and have no answer for it. We Catholics have the Chair of Peter and live in relative clarity about what we believe. In the Orthodox church its essentially like anglicanism where i can find orthodox bishops who believe differently on a number of isses such as contraception and divorce or even the filioque, but they remain under this umbrella term of "Orthodoxy" that really doesnt stand for much. Thats why Russia and Greece are now in schism because they lack a basic understanding of authority. Much peace and love to my russian orthodox brothers.
@@lionheart5078
Orthodoxy is a CONFEDERATION of Bishops, or a Confederated Hierarchy. Our strength is PRECISELY because We don’t keep all our eggs in one jurisdictional basket. Ever since the Carolingian influence on the See of Rome led her to become a Top-Down monarchy, whenever Rome drifts from Orthodoxy, all under her are dragged along with her.
In Orthodoxy, when someone becomes irrevocably heretical, we amputate to keep the gangrene from spreading.
It’s also odd to make an example of Bart because he has been corrupted by the same globalist ideologies that have led Francis down the soft postmodernist path he has taken.
Bugnini and his ilk, once they took control of the Papacy, (not as directly and quickly as they had hoped), ALL was lost and the rest is a 100 years of residual traditionalists in denial, futilely trying to hold the utterly impossible contradictions of Vaticans 2 AND 1 together, even as such infamous men as Cardinal Mahoney and that “African Queen” character refuse to excommunicate ANYONE like Pelosi or Biden, and allow people in general who are openly supporting infanticide and/or are in denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Whenever 99% of Orthodox priests becomes aware of a parishioner who denies the Real Presence, or is openly supporting abortion, yet STILL dares to present himself for communion, he will be DENIED. “Repent or SIT DOWN”, and that is THAT. Oh, there’s some allegedly “Orthodox” parishes like the one Tom Hanks attends, (and had as parish priest the dad of that hack journalist, Stepenopolis) but they are among the few in America not resisting Bart’s extremism, embracing it even. They are no more Orthodox anymore than you are.
I would never set foot in a Greek parish in that diocese. The truly Orthodox in that area near Hollyweird are all fleeing to Antioch, which, while not as confrontational as Moscow, WILL NOT BEND. They will go two hours out of their way to a true Orthodox parish than continue to go to the Greek parish down the street that has gone “woke”. Fortunately, this is about the only diocese in America that’s been having to do this. Bart is not popular. Trad Romans going out of their way to the Latin mass or Uniate Liturgies may claim to relate, but Novis Ordo IS the “law of the WHOLE land” and there’s nowhere truly for you to permanently escape to from it without becoming SOME kind of Sedevacantist. If you ultimately take THAT route, why trust ANY of the popes since at least 1204? (I prefer that date for the schism.) We Orthodox have treated the SECOND seat of Peter as empty since then. But we have other seats to turn to, Peter’s First, in my case.
Why the Eastern Orthodoxy in the world do not want a visible Head of the Church globally? Do you ever see a fold of sheep without a shepherd? Christ established only one Church to cover all the world, so it's logical we have one shepherd globally as a visual head of her Church while Jesus ascended to the Heaven. That's why we need a Pope to be our leader for both East and West. Why is so hard to accept Jesus' decision.?
ruclips.net/video/s0Awu46NWJU/видео.html
I think my only issue is, why did it take 1000 years after Jesus to make these changes and elect a pope and add the Filioque? Why does the church keep evolving over time even now? Wouldn’t the apostles teach us since the beginning everything we needed to know?
I think you already failed when you decided its because "we don't _want_ a head of the church. If Jesus only wanted one head he would have just had one disciple and everyone would be under him. But thats not what we see. We see a council in Acts 15 in which the apostles and other disciples all discuss and they come to a decision together and it's James the brother of the Lord, the Bishop over Jerusalem who makes the pronouncement of the council. Peter did have a role in guiding it, but there would be no need for the council if it was just peter making the decisions.
All of the bishops are shepherds over the various flocks of the earth. It's not just Peter who was given the keys.
Jay doesn't seem to have a good grasp on papal infallibility. I don't think it is because he is ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches but rather, like so many Protestants, he puts his own spin on it and requires everything to be proven to refute his incorrect view. At least he admits he is reading his own Orthodox viewpoint into history which makes it easy for him to reject any Eastern Fathers which supported Papal supremacy and infallibility.
Erick repeated Jay's points to clarify, especially around juridical synodal enlightenment of truth to the Christian, to say that Catholics believe the same thing. Jay went on to attack a straw man of what Catholics believe and teach. He thinks he understands what the Catholic Church teaches but attacking a straw man is just weak. Him losing his cool was not cool. That usually happens when someone is defeated.
He was a Roman Catholic that was studying it all for 12 years on his way to becoming a monk.
He red Denzinger's Catholic dogma twice. Most people haven't.
Erick was manipulative and relied on the audience short attention spans and inability to see platitudes as deliberate smokescreen.
The "straw man" he mentioned is still true. It's not a strawman if you don't misquote and make something up.
Dyer's a douchebag and a fraud, but Ybarra isn't that better.
@@NikolaAvramov lol you have too many comments blaring of Copium like the average dyerite 🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@NikolaAvramov I read Denzinger twice bro....you can't refute me bro..... like I actually give a single crap if you've read it twice.
I would argue that Eastern Orthodox know the subject of "papal infallibility" better than almost all Roman Catholics, as Orthodoxy has spent 1000 years refuting it.
Dyer clearly lost every single argument, and turned it into throwing at Eric just about anything and see if it sticks, I felt like I'm watching muslim going on tiktok rant. Hats off to Eric for keeping it civil
“Erick won cuz he woz not mean 😢” 😂😂
@@jamesellis4035he clearly won bro cry us a river
@@jamesellis4035 no only that, but first sign of losing is turning to personal attacks because you don't have answers, Dyer clearly had nothing to show except basic Internet arguments and 0 knowledge to address any Eric objections. After being slapped for each of these weak polemics it was clear he got frustrated so to "save face" he tried to intimidate Eric
@@Adamcatholic look at my original comment on the comment section of the video
@@jamesellis4035 my friend, it's clear Jay totally failed and went through meltdown. In one sentence he ask for "coherent, consistent evidence for Papacy from beginning to end" in next one he denies same criteria for Eastern Orthodoxy by saying "in our view Saints can make mistakes" essentially refuting his own claims for Orthodoxy
Just a reminder that Dyer never tried to convert his friend who was into wicca
@@flisom Yes, i guarantee to you that what i said about Jay Dyer is true, how so? he said it himself to his public
ruclips.net/video/XRLOQUnw-FY/видео.html
(1:44:51)
You do know conversion takes more time and subtlety and effort than smashing someone over the head with a bible, right?
@@flisom why did you jump to the pope lol
Jay Dyer lost this debate, doesn't know how to have a respectful discussion and lacks charity. He is a very bad ambassador for Orthodoxy. Erick makes me proud to be Catholic.
"jay dyer mean!!" how do you not see that the RCC is an incoherent system. Your basis for the truth is papal infallibility which you have to believe because the pope infallibly said that it was the case. 🤡
If being arrogant and cocky was a requirement to be a Saint Jay would be one hell of a saint 🤣😂
Jay Dyer is just a Pompous Windbag Jerk Rich 🤑 Kid! God bless you brother 🛐🗝️🗝️🛡️⚔️💯 Catholic
Yeah I don’t think he’s being arrogant or cocky, I think he’s being short, impatient, and discourteous especially in comparison to Eric but he clearly perceives a dishonest and derailing pattern in Eric that he’s become impatient with wether you agree with his perception or not.
@@giannobong6778 Where is Erick being dishonest or derailing?
Not at all too dissimilar to Orthodox "saints" post-schism.
Jay often excuses his behavior with "the church fathers used to get heated in debates all the time bro!"
Wow, Jay is a disrespectful debater who can't stand for an opponent to make a grounded logical argument. He tells you what you believe and then declares you wrong, then a liar when you try to correct him. He did not make a good showing for Eastern Orthodox in this video. Way too emotional and irrational.
Dyer's selling Paganism, endorsing criminals, sweettalking Nazis, flashing the sign of the horns, and selling snake oil in shady circles.
Orthodox Christians don't do that. He's fake.
All the same - this is a good video to figure out how manipulative Ybarra is.
It was an interesting conversation. Thanks to Michael, Erick, and Jay for making it happen.
Jay is out of control and nonsensical im very disappointed slinging insults very sad
@Sling Blade
I thought so, myself, until I've listened to what he's saying for longer than 5 minutes.
I thought he was too harsh on Luc Dauvin, yet he committed an hour to explain why what Luc said was ridiculous and stupid.
How is that rude and too harsh?
If I had to pick a winner based on fruits of the Holy Spirit, Erick is in the right. Jason, I will be praying for you. Your soul seems to be so bitter.
Although Erik’s points didn’t convince me, his behavior did, like a true christian gentleman. God bless you.
Does the bahaviour of mormons convince you about mormonism ?
@Jay Dire Better than posing in front of an inverted cross and supporting an occult (Wiccan) musician, don‘t you think?
@Jay Dire You posing as Jay Dire, well do some research before commenting.
@@GeorgeK1410 lol stop making up stuff, he comes off as a christian who treats people with respect and doesnt act like a child. Jay behaved like a 5 year old who needs a spanking.
@Jason H you know Jay was a Catholic for a decade right?
Ive never noticed how much Dyer flails his arms around like an idiot whenever he is explaining his BS till now
not an argument
sdgdghfsdf gfdgfjghkghjk never never intended it as an argument
@@Evil_Florida Cope
So Sola scriptura sounds based now.
2:53:20 Jay Dyer refers to Erick Ybarra as a “dialectical idiot?” Completely uncalled for.
You need prayers and help
Jay is such a douche here (and in most cases, he doesn’t make sense, and he’s all over the place). And even with all the interruptions, I think Ybarra did a great job here, intellectually... and emotionally. He’s very patient, it’s amazing.
I’m not a catholic or Eastern Orthodox. That being said. What Jay doesn’t understand is this…plain and simple, because you can interrupt somebody regardless of worldview, that doesn’t win a argument. Jay doesn’t understand how to debate, he thinks if I interrupt and spew “my worldview over yours” “therefore I win the debate”… anybody could shred Jay in a debate by simply letting him talk and pointing out his flaws in logic and theology. It’s too simple. Jay’s victims are those who have to answer his questions going down his rabbit trail. Don’t fall victim to a forked tongue devil who wants to control your thinking, Gods Word is for everyone who believes plain and simple
Hey thanks but you should be Catholic, just sayin haha
@@Wilantonjakov Lol that was funny
I enjoyed the debate. I am a Roman Catholic with sympathies with the EO. This is the first time I’ve seen an in-depth discussion of the issue and I agree with Erick. His presentation and support for the argument is quite convincing, despite most of us Catholics disliking Pope Francis and his behavior. I wish Jay the best
Pope Francis' current path to take RC down the sinful wide road proves the Orthodox view that no one Bishop should control the Church. Holy men should come together on equal ground to by consensus lead Christ's Church.
@@paulgundrum9059 Your argument holds no water. Until a pope binds the faithful to believe error (which will never happen because of Christ's promise and never has happened), then we can talk.
@@rody3199 So Pope Francis praying with Muslims isn't error? Previous Popes would call him apostate. Ending the Latin Mass? Again, previous Popes would call him a heretic.
Is it possible that this has been happening since Vatican 2, but so slowly that devout RC's are like the frog in the pan being brought to boiling?
@@paulgundrum9059 Of course it is error, but he has not and cannot bind us to error. You clearly don't understand Papal Infallibility. Also the Pope has the right to abrogate the Latin Mass regardless of how imprudent it may be.
@@GB-jc8eo wow, You are a better man than I. Your devotedness to Papal infallibility takes more faith than following Christ. While Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever the Papacy is definitely changeable.
And another thing: Jay's absolute refusal to simply come out and say what his required standard of evidence would be to proof the papacy is further evidence that, at least on public venues, he has no interest of engaging in dialogue or trying to find out the truth, all he wants to do is "win", which is why it's impossible for him to say: "this is something that would defeat my and the Orthodox positions", God forbid Eric or someone else might actually pull the trigger and meet that burden of proof for him in public.
He explicitly said that he considers coherency to be a deciding factor.
@@NikolaAvramov Yes, after basically being "pinned down". I was commentating as I was listening and this comment was made before he said it.
@@josealzaibar5274 Which makes him more honest, 'cause Ybarra would say "I understand that, Eric. We can talk about that in some other debate. But here's what I want to know" and then repeat his argument and pretend not to have heard the other guy's argument.
Which he did dozens of times.
@@NikolaAvramov Did you see the post debate?
@@josealzaibar5274 Which one?
The sect of JayDyerism is troubling....Pray for those under the spell of delusion
😎
Being able to discern Truth doesn't require us to admire the truth teller as perfect.
Jay Dyer has been a tremendous help in understanding philosophy history and theology for many people. The delusion comes from believing a single man can account for all things.
Have you seen the Catholic's infallible Pope recently?
You can make any argument you want, calling Francis infallible is the same delusion as anyone who thinks Jay Dyer is infallible.
Both Francis and Jay have said true things but both have been tremendously incorrect about other things. They are just men after all and will be judged before God as men.
The only truly infallible one is God and his Incarnation. He is the Beginning and the End after all. Believing a man titled Pope is perfect as Christ is perfect while history shows us tyranny and degeneracy is commonplace in the Papic authority is so damaging to the witness those claiming to be Christian have on the world.
People see Catholics as a den of pedophiles and see their sister Churches found in Protestantism as out of touch and cruel or spineless or both.
This will not stand on the day of judgement. God have mercy on us.
@Jay Dire So if a Mormon Child is being abused by their family and only has prayer, they can't be heard due to the heretical dogma they're under?
Don't assume you know God.
@Harley Mann I'm sure many people (like yourself) are incapable of discerning truth from those who only see part of it... That's everyone by the way.
I don't believe Jay can account for all things. Haha he's just a man and you're just some avatar on RUclips.
You can bare false witness to my position if you'd like... However the Bible says "we will know them by their fruit" and this is the truth, read history it doesn't lie (which is probably why you won't read it).
Roman Catholics are the ones who are deceived. Their spiritual Hubris has ended the lives of millions in their "Holy Wars" and the Pope's historical degeneracy with pedophilia scars his "infallible" witness to the world (infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong).
If you try to defend Catholicism you defend it from a position of weakness. You can call me deceived and just dismiss me if you like but I can still yell to the heavens that the Pope accepts the "civil unions" of homosexuals and has used God's name to justify the destruction of millions of Jews, Muslims and Orthodox at Jerusalem.
@Jay Dire So there's exceptions to your rule. It's funny how exceptions tend to appear when rules don't hold up. Why doesn't that apply to your idol the Pope?
The Truth is Jesus Christ who is the Godhead of the Church not the Pope.
Jay dyer debate strategy= force what he thinks you believe on you so he can beat up that argument he's telling you you believe
This was painful. Dyer spends ages rudely admitting that nothing from the first 1000 years of church history could be used to convince him that he is wrong about the papacy.
Genuinely baffling.
Ybarra's case is painfully dubious.
I think he did a poor job explaining it, but I understood him to say it's basically asking to prove a negative. To prove papal infallibility you need a list of every ex cathedra statement ever made, and to prove that it is correct, and to prove the permeance of the office you'd need a list of every pope and proof that none of them were heretics.
@@boochparadise I'm not sure that it is proving a negative. The catholic claim about the papacy is a positive claim.
@@MrWoaaaaah You can kind of phrase it either way. To say the pope is always infallible when speaking ex cathedra is the same as saying the pope is NEVER fallible when speaking ex cathedra.
@@boochparadise do you think Dyer's point is that you cannot disprove/prove a negative, so therefore the claim is meaningless? If so, then if the claim can be turned from a negative into a positive, as you say, then his objection disappears.
I thank God for this debate, at first I was feeling some doubts about my Catholic faith when it came to EO but after seeing this I'm very much secure in the Church.
Jay "debates" a lot like the Diamond Brothers. He does a lot of moving of the goalposts. He throws a lot of shotgun superficial arguments that are not deep. Then when things are going the wrong direction he says "we have a different epistemology". The example of that is that everybody in Eastern Orthodoxy, including councils can be wrong. I have no idea what the criteria for truth is in Eastern Orthodoxy after watching this debate ❓The criteria for truth is just circular. Also Jay uses the same criteria of judging papal statements as sedevacantists. He expects absolute papal orthodoxy in every statement, which is completely contradictory to the teachings of Vatican 1.
In Orthodoxy *YOU* are the Pope basically
I keep coming back to this video. I think the argument Jay is trying to make is that, if indeed the Pope possessed the charism of infallibility (ex cathedra) dating all the way back to the Gospel of Matthew, then there could be no case in which a pope was a heretic or an apostate. The reasoning is because those two facts are contradictory; a heretic/apostate Pope cannot, by definition, be infallible - under *any* circumstances. I think along with this is some claim that a heretic is ipso facto excommunicated from at least his office - and possibly from the Church as a whole. But history clearly shows that we have had heretical Popes. Therefore, it cannot be true that a charism of infallibility was ever implied or discharged onto Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18. Or at the very least, the Pope makes his own office null and void as soon as he becomes a heretic, therefore making it impossible for him to discharge any divinely-willed grace of infallibility (since he has, in effect, vacated his own office).
I think what Eric would need to show to defeat Jay's argument is that, *even if* a pope was heretical, the charism of infallibility stays on him, and prevents him from error under the narrow conditions where he can speak infallibly.
Ya I just came back to this as well. Couple of things strike me. 1) Dyer comes across as angry and petulant in much of the cross examination; that alone makes me think he's arguing in bad faith. 2) He ironically actually makes the case for the need of a Pope, at least in doctrinal matters. If your councils and saints confirm the popes infallibility, but then later reneg on that; who decides that?
As far as can a bad/heretical man be Pope...the answer is of course yes. Many of the men that God appointed throughout both the New and old testament fell far short of their office. But it didn't change the fact that their office was Holy and appointed by God.
@DonnyBlips Thanks Donny. I'm probably going to become Episcopal (Anglican), and maybe attend the Orthodox Church ever so often.
You make the claim that history shows there have been heretical popes. They have been pronounced heretical/antipopes because what they have spoken contradicts Church tradition. These statements are correct. Just a moment before you mentioned that a heretic can be ipso facto excommunicated from his office/the church depending on the severity of the heresy. All these statements are true, but I fail to see why this means it cannot be true that a 'charism of infallibility' is discharged onto Peter by Christ, since a Pope is _only_ infallible within a specific paradigm - on matters of faith and morals. This is where ex cathedra statements are important and directly relate to Christ's actions toward Peter. This is why Alexander VI, the notorious fornicator and degenerate could remain Pope, because he didn't dare touch the magisterium. I think this is where Jay is also wrong about the Vatican II stuff. No pope within the last 60 years (since the council) has spoken ex cathedra or made a dogmatic statement on faith and morals. Yes, they have relayed their opinions which contradict tradition, but like Alexander they haven't made official dogmatic statements or added to the magisterium. This is where I would bring up my view that Vatican II is a false council. I would say it makes sense, considering it just completely contradicts Trent and other previous councils in areas, but it's only my opinion and of course I leave up the possibility for me to be corrected on this matter. Yes, I think there is a possibility the sedevacantists are correct, but I do have problems resolving their view of the popes within the last 60 years.
@@jamesshaw6455jay clarifies the distinction early on in the debate. He isn’t talking about a “fall” he is talking about being a heretic which means outside of the church which means excommunication. How could a pope who is heretical, not immediately be excommunicated and if he is excommunicated how in the world would he have an office with which to speak infallibly? It necessitates that a pope cannot ever fall into heresy. We aren’t talking error. We aren’t saying he cannot make an error in judgment or even sin in some major way. We are talking about heresy which leads to excommunication. You can sin and not be excommunicated. So we are talking about how in the world if the pope judges all things, can a synod throw him out for sins/crimes that would necessitate excommunication. He could rule that he is not a heretic and overrule the whole body of the Church.
Jay and the Orthodox are not arguing that the Pope did not have primacy and as they call it the highest office of appeal. They are arguing that this does not translate into basically a king over the church other than Christ and all of the other doctrines that accompany that. I agree with Ibbara that he technically wins the debate topic, but loses the war. You could almost understand the conciliar nature of the Church as more of a republic than a monarchy even though in civilian forms of government a monarchy would be the preferred form of government the Church is not a government. It is a priesthood and the highest office of appeal is a president but the president cannot execute absolute power. The way catholics view the papacy is that he has an absolute power relationship to the church more akin to a king than a president who is bound to other orders of authority.
@@EricBryant Do you believe in Apostolic Succesion?
Jay wasn’t here for a dialogue in good faith. He came to pick a fight and defend- not his Faith, rather to defend his ego. I really wanted to hear and understand his point, he let himself be the more important than The Faith.
For anyone wondering, this is the short version:
Jay: If you're right I need to see the evidence
Erick: ok what about you, can you show me the evidence you're right?
Jay: no... why? that only applies to you, I know I'm right
Erick: whatever here is the evidence (proceeds to cite the whole Church)
Jay: I don't accept these
Erick: ok what kind of evidence do you accept?
Jay: If I saw one I could tell you but I didn't see any
Sounds like Matt Dillahunty
@@FightFilmsI was just about to say lol
Are you really this slow
Jay makes the point very clear that he finds evidentialist epistemology problematic because they could both just swap quotes back and forth. The point is they would just be reading those quotes according to their system. Instead, Jay wanted to compare the systems and see which one is more coherent. Orthodoxy can sustain errors in Church Fathers and councils and even heretical bishops because it is based on synodality. The Roman Catholic system, however, cannot sustain contradictions between something Vatican 1 and 2 and/or a heretical Pope and be coherent. Ybarra agrees with this @2:36:30 and Jay then points out the contradictions.
Jay is basically a Protestant that couldn’t justify critiquing Catholics from that point of view so he moved to EO to have a more solid foundation, even though he’s still not right.
Not so sure EO has a more solid foundation anymore.
@@Giorginho I've done several shows on why I think this is so.
I would humbly suggest that anyone can read the Patristic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc) and will clearly see NO MENTION of Papal supremacy or that the Bishop of Rome was the "authority". In fact one could discover that Polycarp travelled to Rome as Bishop of Smyrna and disagreed with the Pope (representing the other Eastern Churches) over the date of Easter/Pascha. Rather than declare anathema or excommunicate him, Pope Anicetus and Polycarp just "agreed to disagree".
Here is a plain example of a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church openly in defiance of the dogma of Papal Supremacy from the second century. Eric argues that the Church "always" showed the aspect of Papal Supremacy even if it wasn't written specifically, but in this case Bishop Polycarp either didn't get the memo or didn't know/care. Was Pope Anicetus being magnanimous in not damning Polycarp to hell, OR did the thought not cross his mind because he didn't have the Supremacy to do so?
Pretty much nailed it - a lot of these new age EO are just Protestants trying to found more grounding in their arguments.
@@reasonandtheology Can you name any of those shows? I'm interested. Do you have a playlist of them?
Jay's point was this: the papacy is structured in a fundamentally different manner than that of the Orthodox Church (so there was no double double standard as Erick was trying to imply that Jay was using: one can judge the papacy in one way and the Orthodox Church in another - and this is not double standard). The structure of the papacy does NOT allow any error because, as dogmatized in Vatican I, the presence of ONE error would demonstrate the falsity of the system as a whole (which claimed to be divinely instituted and therefore infallible). Ybarra's reaction was simply a refusal to answer Dyer's argument and a attempt to prove that a system of appeals to the Pope meant the same thing as Vatican I doctrine. Which is absurd. Jay would do good if pointed out specifically how Vatican I understands the Pope's power: “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power.” As Seraphim Hamilton showed in his video (www.youtube.com/ watch? v = BBOd2tXFObw) it is not possible to find evidence that popes had this kind of power (as defined in Vatican I) in the first millennium, so the papacy is false. Jay refused to argue about specific points in the past as Ybarra wanted because that's irrelevant: if Jay proves that there is an internal contradiction in the Papacy system the whole thing goes down. Ybarra was either pretending not understand Jay's argument (ie being dishonest) or he really didnt understand Jay's argument. Judge by yourself.
@@Erick_Ybarra "However, it should be borne in mind that the Catholic Church does not teach that the magisterium is always infallible. There are fallible versus infallible modes of teaching. This was not covered due to lack of will/time. However, in the pool of infallible modes of teaching, the Catholic Church has never erred."
The problem is that Roman Catholics will simply say that whenever a pope erred it was not part of the infallible magisterium. So there is no way to convince a roman catholic that the infallible pope erred in the infallible magisterium. The roman catholics will always use this 'trick' of considering errors part of the 'falible magisterium'.
@@Erick_Ybarra Not him, but I can assure you it was clear where you were trying to go with your argument, however in order for your argument to work in the first place, you would have had to show where in formal EO doctrine it states that "Orthodox Saints [teaching] very clearly the divine institution of the Papacy" is incompatible with the EOC. And I'm generously overlooking the problems with that specific phrasing of your claim here. The core point is that EOC doesn't operate the same way as the RCC does in having these "modes" of fallibility vs infallibility. So cherry-picking instances of **any** Orthodox saints/church fathers "teaching the papacy", outside of a formal ecumenical counsel, is not invalid Orthodox discourse. Especially pre-schism, and when it was only a minority of the church fathers that were promoting this view in the first place. It's a view that's highly frowned upon now of course, but what you're trying to imply with your line of argument is some kind of formal contradiction, which simply is not there. And since the RCC (at least since Vatican I) operates with a much more strict and formal interpretation of condemnable actions, there's no way to adequately port the EOC's standard over to the RCC or vice-versa, which is what you're trying to do with your argument.
"was it also clear that I was comparing how Jay is willing to shed failures of the past and thus putting the onus on him for the inconsistent standard he is placing on the Catholic?"
Except that it's not about "shedding the failures of the past", it's about questionable things still being within the realm of acceptable tolerance. Like how in manufacturing, you might ask for a very precise measurement for a part, but realistically you're never going to get the ideal exact precision you want, so you have to design some wiggle-room to allow for error in the fabrication process. The RCC has the same notion of course, but its tolerance levels were severely constrained during Vatican I, giving it much less wiggle-room for error than the EOC. And since the RCC views the development of doctrine as simply elucidating what was always there already, it means those strict parameters need to apply retroactively as well. This effectively makes comparing the history of the EOC and the RCC like comparing apples and oranges. It's like asking a doctor that just measured another patient's temperature, why he couldn't also give you the courtesy of measuring your height with the same thermometer, and accusing him of placing an inconsistent standard on his patients.
"confirm it was clear that the teaching ministry of the Pope and the Church has both fallible and infallible modes?"
As alluded to by the first portion of this response, it is in fact clear. However, there is no analogue to this formal distinction in the EOC, and that's why a bridge can't just automatically be drawn between the two. You can try to argue for how you might do that, but that needs to come first before attempting to apply certain arguments to both simultaneously. Because without that, it's like trying to do physics while mixing metric and imperial units together without converting them first.
Your best course of action against Jay's argument, would be to clearly demonstrate that the strict infallible rulings of Vatican I don't apply to infallible modes of teaching, and that all cases of apparent conflicts with Vatican I rules have been formally accepted as having been given during fallible modes of teaching, including any apparent contradictions in Vatican II.
However, it would be even more convincing for Orthodox people if you tried to refute these essays instead:
www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
web.archive.org/web/20120302163030/www.aoiusa.org/2009/09/the-idea-of-primacy-in-orthodox-ecclesiology/
@@Erick_Ybarra you did a good Job dealing with a irrational hypocrite.
@Paddy Mcgill >"So what you are saying is that Orthodox have no doctrine of Truth ?"
What do you even mean by "doctrine of Truth"? If you're asking whether anything is considered infallible, then yes, such a things do exist, but it generally does not apply to individuals and their opinions, whereas it does apply to things such as councils and scripture. This is because we are all sinners, and our individual wills are generally unreliable. Therefore, granting a single individual infallibility under any circumstance (e.g. papal infallibility), is difficult to reconcile with the reality of fallen humans, and is more reminiscent of Protestant philosophy than anything the EOC teaches.
>"If the Orthodox do not have to abide by a standard of Truth then they don’t have to actually teach “True” doctrine , right? "
It's not that people don't have to abide by the truths laid out by ecumenical councils, it's that it's impossible to accurately determine what is actually correct among the myriad of possible interpretations of several matters, when we can't hold an ecumenical council to have the holy spirit work through and reveal the answer. Plus, the EOC functions primarily on apophatic theology, meaning that it's far more concerned with ruling out incorrect teachings, than it is in asserting "correct" teachings. This negation-based approach is important, because it keeps the EOC from just dictating specific interpretations willy-nilly without just rationale, for if there were not a strong enough case to back up a certain interpretation, they would run the risk of accidentally teaching something contrary to God's will, like the Pharisees ended up doing.
>"And comparing the EO and RCC is not “apples and oranges” as there was 1 church until 1054. "
First of all, it is widely acknowledged by both the EOC and RCC that the east and west started drifting apart much earlier than that. The first essay I linked in my previous response dates western differences of opinion starting at least as far back as the time of Cyprian of Carthage (~250AD). Secondly, last time I checked, we aren't in 1054 anymore, therefore there are still 1000 years of difference to account for, and a lot can (and did) happen in that time.
>"Pretending that the Orthodox are some new species sounds a lot like how Protestants use magical and created histories and timelines that have no bearing in reality"
You can only make such a claim because you're approaching it from the RCC interpretation of history, where 1/5 patriarchs going their own way somehow means the other 4 were the "schismatics". The Orthodox would argue that it was the west (RCC + Protestantism) that created alternate histories to suit their political agendas. And this is backed up by secular history, considering the huge influence the Frankish Empire had on the western half of the church:
ruclips.net/video/DyuvkoiYlYk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Bqm8pt21cYg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/SvEX15vd82w/видео.html
bydloscum can you please rewrite the link to Seraphim Hamilton's video you are referring to here? Or at least the channel and title? The link doesn't work. Thank you
I've watched this debate 2x now. This was a tough one to parse out, but I think I see what's at the heart of the debate.
Phronema.
The RC mind operates on a different phronema than the Orthodox mind.
This comes out in what I think is the heart of the debate, at the 2:18:00 mark.
The Orthodox phronema is the core, the ground, by which the Orthodox interpret the historical data. And the Catholic phronema is their lens by which they interpret the historical data.
Both Eric and Jay are working with the same historical data. But as Jay points out, evidence does not arrive uninterpreted. It is interpreted through a worldview.
That worldview - another near synonym for phronema - is different in Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
The Catholic phronema is one of a Thomistic, rationalistic, philosophical nature. That is why Eric is looking for a preponderance of evidence for the claim of papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
However, as Jay points out - albeit poorly - the Orthodox phronema is different. It is a worldview that clings closely to the apostolic traditions and way of thinking. Jay tries to get at this with his claim for a coherence theory of epistemology. But I think that muddies and complicates the issue.
The simpler way to argue is that the Orthodox mindset or phronema is one of decentralized authority, staunch adherence to apostolic tradition, and, as Orthodox scholar and presbytera, Dr. Constantinou says, a refusal to mix philosophy with theology. For the Orthodox, theology is not primarily philosophical or rational, but spiritual.
As a result, the Orthodox mind isn't convinced even if Eric were to present 100 bishops and patriarchs who were in favor of papal universality and infallibility but only 1 bishop who was opposed to it. The only thing the Orthodox mind cares about is: was this the tradition, understanding, and way of life handed down by Jesus and the Apostles? Period.
If the answer is no, the Orthodox doesn't care how many later bishops or fathers said yes. If 100 bishops said that the bishop of Rome had authority above all other bishops, but the Apostles taught a way of life of equality among bishops, the Orthodox are siding with the apostolic tradition.
This difference of phronema or worldview is intensified at the 2 hour 18 min mark. Jay is basically arguing for the Orthodox phronema; that is, if it wasn't handed down by apostolic tradition, then it isn't valid - no matter who tries to enact it later on.
Ya and its a completely incoherent ecclesiology. You can't on one hand claim that your system has internal coherence and then when an issue arises that you don't agree with ("well they're wrong on x issue") claim that same source ('orthodoxy') has no coherency. It's almost childish in its flaw.
@@Christian_Conservative Right. I get that. But his critiques come off flat-footed when the position he's coming from is *itself* incoherent. The only thing he established in this debate is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
@@Christian_Conservative Fair enough.
You can't on one end say, "this wasn't handed down by the Apostles" and then make your argument based on the Fathers, councils, etc and then when it's refuted redirect your inconsistent argument and say, "I don't care how many fathers, Bishops, etc taught what is Roman primacy; they're all wrong because Orthodox phronema." That's not logically coherent no matter how much you want to hide behind cool words (which I do admit they are cool) as a smokescreen. It's interesting that the very issue that Constantinople had with Rome at the schism with Rome claiming authority outside of its jurisdiction, theyre now using that same argument against Russia... It always goes back to that age-old question, "by what authority?"
That was a very long strawman of the Catholic position. Though your like the comment as a whole
This debate should be organized, with definite times for each one. It was supposed to be a civilized and serious debate and you had a pub discussion.
Felipe Stancioli we offered a formal debate as you can see towards the end of the video. He has declined.
Felipe Stancioli also there wasn’t supposed to be anything because we were doing a video and jay decided to come into the com box and asked to join impromptu. I asked can we do times and both wanted a casual non timed conversation.
Felipe Stancioli lastly we have offered jay the chance to do a formal debate on several occasions even before this video and each time he backs out. He wants unmoderated videos where he can over talk and jump all over the place.
Reason and Theology when i say that was supposed to be a civilized and serious debate, i'm saying because of the very topic. But i understand the circunstances that it is happening. Anyway is a great initiative and i appreciate it, thanks.
Felipe Stancioli thanks for watching. Keep visiting the channel because we have more guests coming on with some good topics.
Jay doesn't want to dialogue or debate. He wants to argue.
An argument, yes, he wants an actual argument
When I was listening to Jay Dyer's presentations in his channel and reading his article on the five simple reasons against the Papacy, I felt shaken and disturbed. I felt my faith in the Papacy was crumbling. Then luckily I saw this debate between Erick and Dyer. Erick restored my faith in the Papacy though I admit there must be a lot of grey areas in the history of the Papacy. As I have always believed that the Catholic faith is based on reason and logic apart from the Bible and Tradition, I was proved true by Erick from the style of his debate. On the other hand, most Protestants when they speak on any subject related to the Bible or Christian faith, they assume an air of infallibility. Dyer sounded very much like that, that his knowledge, his understanding, his conclusions, etc. were infallible. No one can debate with a person when that person assumes such conceited air of infallibility.
That's Dyer's job.
This is why his RUclips channel is sitting pretty and why he's getting that sweet Alex Jones publicity.
He has a semblance of legitimacy 'cause he's citing serious dogma. And then he goes and endorses criminals, sweettalks Nazis, preaches Pagan crap and hangs out with Satanists.
Orthodox Christians don't do any of that.
A part of his job is covering doubt in the Papacy by acting like a jackass 'cause most modern people are conditioned since childhood to drop any logical notion that comes with arrogant or rude behavior.
Orthodox Christian officials behave almost the opposite of him. He's out there so you wouldn't hear serious arguments that make sense without being able to cop out and say "his behavior is horrible".
An Orthodox Christian, for one, doesn't hide his church and doesn't go around debating without a publically verifiable blessing. And if he's rude in public to anyone - the blessing's revoked immediately and officially.
"My faith in the papacy"--this phrase sums up the entire problem right there. To be Orthodox you have to be Orthodox--to be Catholic you have to be a papist. Catholics have been largely reduced to apologists for the office of the papacy, to the detriment of their own orthodoxy.
@@jasonroberts2249 Faith in Jesus also includes faith in the Papacy. Jesus did not establish a Church without a visible leadership under Peter. Without the Papacy as it evolved in the Church from the very beginning, Christianity would have died a natural death after the Ascension of Jesus. The Christians who did not accept the Papacy have splintered into thousands of groups. I am glad that the Catholic Church is held together by the Papacy.
Conceited air of infallibility huh… the irony of that comment goes over you
@@hippios No, sir. I have nothing to be conceited about. If I appear to be infallible, it is only because the Catholic Church is infallible in her teachings. No other denomination can claim such infallibility to teach authoritatively.
I am not Catholic nor Orthodox. Been studying, have attended and listened to both types of Churches, podcasts in accordance to the scriptures in hopes of finding a church to be a part of. Though I will say there are things I can't quite agree with yet or at all with the Catholic church.. I see more judgment and attack from the Orthodox Church that makes it hard to see Christ at work. Not trying to be judgmental just what I have experienced in many attempts to understand both sides.
What have you decided, brother?
Someone's behaviour does not mean that his belief system is wrong or not. If a hindu was nice as Erick, I wouldn't become hindu. Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic or are you considering to enter Orthodoxy?
I'd simply ask which church has covered up years and years and hundreds of abuses by clergy towards children. Which church had its monasteries shut down in Mexico because they were found to be places where monks were fornicating with nuns and murdering their offspring? Or the indigenous schools the catholic church ran in Canada where so many children disappeared. I'll wait..I'm sure that's the true church. What is that saying? You shall know them by their fruit. The fruit is rotten, from its lower most branches to the top. I forgot that there were never any Pope's with known harems and who conducted orgies in Vatican City. Silly me.🙄
Michael Lofton, in retrospect, man you were needed as a much more active moderator especially on Dyer's attitude. At some point Dyer needed to be told to take five minute break and come back in a better frame of mind. You had no obligation, moral or therwise, to put up with his immature performances. Erick was so patient and very generous both with his time and his active listening that it was incumbent on Dyer to reciprocate. When he repeatedly failed to do so, there really was not much point in continuing without at least imposing a break with conditions on his return. Thank you for keeping this encounter on the public record and for making the effort to attain a constructive use of time and effort for all involved, including us in your audience. Thank very much.
Eric was in slow mo and Dyer was on fast forward lol
Virtue is calm. The opposite is panicky.
@@elijahyasi5858 apparently virtue gets extra calm when they've been argumentatively cornered.
@@TheRealRealOK what would virtue look like in that situation?
@@elijahyasi5858 Once again proving that Catholics cannot think except by absolute dialectics.
@@AdHominus Do you speak Nonsense? Because unfortunately that's a language I can't understand.
Man its embarrassing how bad Jay dyer got destroyed
About 2 hours in Jay says outright that he will never be convinced to Erick's argument. He really could have saved everyone a lot of time if he had led with that.
he had listened to his argument for two hours at that point with all of ericks meandering and avoiding his questions. I don't blame him.
Jay is not giving historic evidence for his argument on the restoration of Athanasius. It may be just that his only talking about a later much development in the Orthodox Church. I do not know if he realizes that he is speaking from Silence. He lost the argument and unprepared.
ok, so he asks for evidence for Papal claims in the first 1000 years, when Ybarra provides evidence Jay just says that "actually they were wrong" even if comes from eastern Saints and Ecumenical Councils.
That's a big WFT hahahah.
This is a SUPER subjective counter argument. In this case how can I be sure that Jay is no commiting error right now saying those things about Orthodoxy if orthodoxy don't even have object authority to claim anything? They error all the time according to him.
Wait, so if saints and councils and everyone can be wrong, then wouldn't a council condemning a Pope be wrong also? Jay seemed to basically appeal to epistemic nihilism to deny the scaffolding of Eric's case, but is swift to change to epistemic certainty when it suits him.
I would say the same could be said for Eric's position. "Reading into" what the councils were saying, thinking, etc. with the idea that Papal Infallibility is the correct dogma is just as wrong.
@@grixlipanda287 no, no contradiction, if You see it from the Orthdox perspective. Eric's case is to read now into then, where as the Orthdox perspective is to read it as it was. The Bishop of Rome was given honor, but nothing else. When someone made a plea to Rome, someone else makes a plea to Alexandria or Constantinople, etc. Of course they would want the Bishop of one of the largest cities in the world to side with them. That proves the importance and honor of the Bishopric, but does not prove anything further.
The Catholic idea of "seeds" of doctrine is something that the Orthdox reject, preferring to follow what has always been.
@@grixlipanda287 lol no- of course you have to talk about the present day dogma because papal dogma as it is today is presented as having always been true so all Jay wanted was for Eric to show that papal dogma with all of its bells and whistles has been consistently present from the beginning because Jay argues it hasn’t and instead has been evolving from an honor into infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Eric kept trying to point single moments in time when someone honored or appealed to the Bishop of Rome and infer from that all of the rest of papal dogma but the problem is that actually proves Jays point about the dogma evolving from simple honor and appeals into universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
No, Jay was completely correct and you’re being silly. Of course everyone can be wrong and even the Catholics believe that.
@@grixlipanda287 i don’t think you know what the word evidence means
Lol Jay was moving from topic to topic. At least stay on a topic for a while and not interrupt every 5 seconds.
He cannot do that because he is wrong. Plain and simple
He knows that He is gonna lose the debate if he doesn't interrupt and change topics rapidly
@@athanasioscyril6467 I agree with you 100%.
It went from 6th ecumenical council to Vatican II To Mortalium Animos (related) to 8th ecumenical council (869).
@@Numenorean921 that's what made me cringe so often.
This was painful to watch.
2 morons
It was. Not sure why Jay’s supporters are so insulting.
it was, for all parties involved
Let us pray for Jay’s conversion.
He used to be a Catholic. Somehow, you didn't keep him there, guys.
@@olgakarpushina492 And that's the catholic church's fault?
@@Lay-Man well, not fault per se. But apparently hoping he will go back is strange at best.
@@olgakarpushina492 Yeah...
Interesting name mate, if you don't mind where are you from? Lol
@@Lay-Man Canada
If you want to see how bad at debating Jay Dyer is, watch for 5 minutes from 2:00:00 or 2:11:38
Dyer is clueless about the nature of papal infallibility. The Church doesn't teach that popes can't be wrong, and Bellarmine, for ex., has much to say about the papacy and heresy. Nowhere does the Church teach that Saints are always right and never err. Further, the Church isn't "built on one guy; it's built on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium -- of which, the papacy is one part. Dyer needs to grow some humility.
Oh. Another thing. The fact that Jay Dyer was upset doesn't prove he's wrong. Please. Let's be honest about it. He should have been a bit calmer but, please, his arguments are solid. We are talking about a person who has immense knowledge and dedication to the Lord.
Lofton doesn't debate for a reason, its a convenient tactic to make videos without any pushback against the claims being made
Jay didn’t realize it but he was arguing that Erick HAD to strawman himself and defend papal infallibility ONLY in the way that JAY deemed acceptable and not in the opposing sides strongest version of the argument. But yet he called Erick “not a good faith actor”. This is exactly how the dawah Muslims argue. This is exactly how the dawah Muslims say that Christians are “running” from the argument. When it in actuality they are the ones that don’t want to hear the other side’s argument.
Jay is disturbed. His Ego has caused his own demise.
Vatican II was a pastoral council. It didn't deal with dogma. Read the opening address to the Council.
The fact that Jay would call someone an idiot in public debate is a major turnoff for me.
He does worse. He called one guy he debated a f***ing retar* during the debate which is still up on his channel.
When Polycarp met Marcion the heretic in Rome in the second century Marcion asked if Polycarp had heard of him. Polycarp answered "Yes, I know you very well, you firstborn son of the devil."
I think when speaking with those who teach falsehood/heresy then all manners can go out the window.
@@paulgundrum9059 who's the heretic? Is it the Protestant Baptist pretending to be Orthodox? Or the Catholic?
@@anthonymarchetta8796 true, that was Jay responding to months of them refusing to debate him formally. So he showed up and made his points.
While not pretty by our standards, Jay was much nicer than the Church Fathers who said worse about those who teach falsely.
Eric really has the patience of a saint..
@@TrollDemN00bs Matthew 15:11 “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
Eric is a con artist
Such a shame this guy Jay is a smart sharp guy but totally argues in bad-Faith and invalidates his cause. Saintly patience from Erick
Jay: there can be errors but I’m never wrong
Sounds like Protestant epistemology
He never said that
Only a woman could come up with such a gross strawman
Papal infallibility. I’d point to the miracle of ‘Our Lady of Lourdes’ where Mary identified herself as “I am the immaculate conception“ which was four years after the dogma was declared by the Pope.
My question would be :" Wouldn't it be great to have a miracle of Mary stating herself what the Pope set as dogma 4 years before?"
Why did it take so many hundreds of year to find out the immaculate conception was true, and then miracoulously, Mary showed up to restate it? Why isn't this miracle prior to any decision?
@@pavelcrestin1sure. The same can be said about a lot of things
@@CPATuttle
Immaculate Conception...
1. 3 saints of your Church deny it: Augustine, Bonaventura and D'Aquino
2. If it is a dogma of Vrigin Mary, why did it take so long?
3. The only reason dogmas appear is when there is a stringent conflict on the issue and it has to be settled. It wasn't the case for that then
4. With this dogma, you make Virgin Mary from the Great Example, the Great Exception. Why is that?
Well, because she didn't start the race from the Start line. She had an impossibility to sin, therefore, nothing she made is worthy of praise.
It's like winning the lottery but having to choose between winning tickets.
Immaculate Conception is like cheating.
Therefore, she is neither a human like us, nor a God like her Son. The real merit is when you start with the same measure and you achieve something great.
5. If God has been conceived on that specific date and the erase of the original sin happened ar that moment or before, why did He decide to erase the original sin prior to his Conception and Birth, like 15 years prior? It makes no sense.
lol the most hilarious part of the debate for me is 1:25:37 where Erick says that Rome had an appellate jurisdiction in response to Jay's claim about Canon 6 of Nicaea and Jay's response was "that's not infallibility" as if that's what Erick was trying to prove let alone make an argument for the papacy
As a Catholic from a far off region away from Europe, I am very grateful that I have met the Second Person of the Trinity and have a Church that guides and supports me. If it weren't for those Catholic missionaries probably I will be out headhunting, and Orthodox would still be nitpicking over all the issues. Say what you will about the Protestants, but they have the same willingness to offer their lives that other may know Christ.
Just out of curiosity, given the contradictions that post Vatican II has compared to pre Vatican II, are you still a catholic or are you considering to enter Orthodoxy?
@@pavelcrestin1quit spamming the same comment . I tried orthodoxy and it wasnt for me one church treated me like a stranger and pushed me to the corner of the room and the russian orthodox church simply bragged about who was a cradle orthodox in the church and were fascinated when they got in Eastern European Orthodox members moving to the parish but also shoved me aside for more “orthodox” members even though i was a serious inquirer . The priest was nice however but no one including him gave me a good reason why catholicism is false .
I'm not a Christian and was really lost for a lot of this debate, but, I understood what Jay was saying about the paradigm issue, and Erick didn't understand it at all, which was a bit frustrating. Jay seems to argue that the Orthodox position is a coherentist sort of view on epistemology based on overall paradigmatic worldviews , rather than an infinitist or foundationalist. That's very interesting. Although, it would be helpful to see where exactly this is taught in the Orthodox tradition, just so I can understand exactly how this is understood. I would be very surprised if the eastern Patristics were actually talking about these kinds of things; I normally associate this kind of thinking with the pre modern philosophers (Spinoza, Hegel, etc). Very excited for Jay's debate with Dillhunty.
You're right that it's a peculiar feature of modern philosophy. You should also check out Fr. Schooping's book to see how disconnected even St. Irenaeus is from these modern philosophers you note and how weak and limited in the Patristic sampling the author's argument is in this book. St. Irenaeus also gives an (admittedly underdeveloped) argument from causality (paragraph 4 "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching"), absolutely contradicting the claim he was a presuppositionalist in the likes of the Calvinist tradition, e.g. Van Til. The ancients, as a whole, do not understand reality in this way.
@@Math_oma Another Church of Dyer debunk, now in the Theology section, lol.
@@JayDyer Keep repeating the mantra, bruh. "Muh Pope in the mosque". Maybe you will see the light that Al Ghazali created to get in direct contact with god, borrowed by Palamas.
@@JayDyer I've read or am currently working through all the materials you recommend, which is how I know they don't say what you claim they say, for example the synodical letter of St. Sophronius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and Fr. Schooping's book above plus my own studies on De Potentia Dei about 'Rabbi Moses' along with the writings of St. John Damascene. I encourage others to check your sources. I simply don't know what you're talking about by 'personal dirt' and I will gladly apologize but I don't know what exactly you're accusing me of.
@@JayDyer Calm down, bruh. Lay down the LSD and realize that this was already debunked. Nobody cares about your UZI word salad. The documentation is clear. St John of Damascus didn't defend that. That's a very particular Lossky point of view in trying to find a justification for Palamas "orthodox doctrines"(In Lossky paradigm) in the earlier fathers. Only the souls you're leading astray believes in you.
I'm surprised Jay is even a Christian.. They will know us by our arrogance - Dyer 1:1
I am more and more convinced that being involved with comment section debate is inherently uncharitable -- thanks Jay.
I thought something valuable would come up, the only thing that happened was that I lost my concentration
Knowledge puffs up. Some may win an argument but loose the battle... Though I see Jay Dyer has lost in this argument, but there is no Love behind his demeanor and tone and appeals.
I love seeing all the butt hurt people in the comment section saying how mean Jay was instead of why he is wrong. Like this isn't an Alcholol anonymous session, it's a debate between two men, relax.
Jay is wrong because he has no standard of certainty and no consistency. The problem with his attitude goes beyond him being mean, and is even more so about him being unable to have any real dialogue, instead relying on insults, interrupting and ignoring everything Erick said.
Exactly, the Catholic cope is strong in the comments
2:58:00 Jay, a claim is not an argument. You have not given any major or minor premises in defense of your paradigms assertion. How can you not understand this, after your graduate coursework in philosophy?!?!?
He's a presuppositionalist, he goes on about paradigms, paradigms, but here he doesn't as you pointed out go into why his paradigm is right.
The whole presup view is PRESUPPOSING your view as true.
Orthodox criticizing a Catholic for what he perceives as a paradox.
That is rich.
Wait is Jay Dyer a pressuppositionalist if he denies foundationalism? He keeps on talking about paradigms. Maybe retained more from his reformed days than we thought.
@Poltiticslogicallyreformed. presuppositional apologetics confuses epistemology and ontology. There need to be some ideas that aren't paradigmatic, otherwise we couldn't communicate, to say the least. We couldn't know anything if all knowledge was paradigmatic. In fact, progressive ideology and prepositional apologists use the same arguments for their ideas. And yes they're contradictory. Classical foundationalism says there are things that can be known apart from any paradigm, while presuppositionalism says your paradigm colors all of your knowledge.
@@MrRezitinas Can you elaborate a little more on this? I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the transcendental argument but I'm not fully understanding your comment:
1:49:44 is an all-time classic moment in the continued Schism of 1054!
Is jay dyer married? Because I know that Ybarra is married and has 6 kids. And this level of love and patience for dyer. God judges us on how we behave. Our religious expression is a means by which we instantiate our behaviors. I’m feeling good as a Catholic here.
I believe he is
He is married.
2:30:00 Jay totally misinterprets the phrase "ordinary and universal magisterium"...that specifically refers to the bishops throughout the world agreeing upon something while not being explicitly united together at an ecumenical council.