Answering Questions on Papal Primacy and Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 787)
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- This is the 3rd part in a series of videos I did with James's Interviews. To see James's channel, go here:
/ @jamessinterviews
To see part 1, go here:
• Interview on Papal Pri...
To see part 2, go here:
• Questions on the Papac...
First second of the video, I thought Eric Ybarra had shaved. Thanks for the video. Excellent as always.
Haha! I can see how that might be seen now that I look at it. Thanks for watching!
This is excellent. (Finally got to listen further.)
Oh my gosh, the old Byzantine Flattery Canard! I'm sorry, but IMHO that dog don't hunt. As the wife of a Byzantine historian, I must say: If historians had to dismiss their sources based on *trying to read the sources' freaking MINDS,* they couldn't say anything about *anything*! How could any historian practice his craft under those circumstances?
This is especially true of scholars whose specialties are in areas with relatively few extant primary sources. Scholars who specialize in US history have available primary sources out the wazoo. Historians who specialize in ancient history, patristics, and Byzantine history do not. *Those* scholars simply cannot *afford* to treat their sources so cavalierly. If they write off most of their sources as insincere, etc., then they have nothing left to work with!
*All* primary sources are tendentious. There's no such thing as absolute objectivity. Therefore, ancient historians have to work with what they've got. Unless they have a compelling reason to doubt or dismiss a given source, they have to take it at more or less face value. A good example is the Alexiad of Anna Comnene. Anna had an axe to grind the size of Hagia Sofia. But she's still the best source for the reign of her dad, so historians *have* to use the Alexiad. They can't just write it off.
OK, I've beat that dead horse into the ground, so I'll shut up now.
One more point, though: I'm always struck by one salient fact: Orthodox and Anglicans NEVER seem to cast shade on those patristic sources they believe support their own ecclesiology. Magically, for some reason, *those* passages are never dismissed as Byzantine Flattery or Hyperbole. How convenient! 🤔
really great interview. Is there a video you Erick or of Michal L. going through the ideas of Father Laurent Cleenewerck? For example Im confused about his idea that in every diocese the Bishop is Peter and the priests the rest of the apostles. In my understanding the Bishops are the sole successors of the apostles but the priests came out of pure necessity to extend the reach of the Bishop. Would love to hear someone speak about this.
I have an extended chapter in my book on Cyprian that deals with this. God bless!
@@Erick_Ybarra thanks im saving up for it :)
Mr Ybarra, any update on the papacy book? God bless
Beginning of 2023 is the last update I received
Erick, is there anyway I can have your email to ask you a question regarding Catholic teaching on Catholic ecumenical councils and the doctrine of limbo?
This video exceeds CZcams's weight limit.
Forgive me if I'm off the mark here, but it's my understanding that the apostles, and others, were not martyred for what they "believed" necessarily. It was my understanding that they were martyred for what they witnessed. Which is a huge distinction to make. Suffice to say that what they witnessed, both during Christ's earthly ministry and the resurrection def influenced to what extent they believed...certainly.
The pope isn't infallible lol
Is that statement by you infallible, LOL
When he speaks ex cathedtha he is.