The Logic of Papal Infallibility - Ben Bollinger & Erick Ybarra
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- What is the logical rationale of Papal Infallibility? Is it just a scheme to augment the worship of 1 single man? Is there any evidence for it in the historical sources that all Christians recognize? Join Ybarra & Bollinger as they dig into history and reason to discuss the answers to these questions.
Ben Bollinger's Ancient Insights
ancientinsights.wordpress.com/
Ben Bollinger's Substack
benjaminjohn.substack.com/
Ben Bollinger on Instagram
/ benjaminjohn271
Ben Bollinger on FB
profile.php?...
Classical Christian Thought on Patreon
/ classicalchristianthought
Classical Christian Thought on Locals
www.classicalchristianthought...
PayPal (Erick Ybarra)
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Erick...
Classical Christian Thought Home Website
www.ErickYbarra.com
Erick Ybarra's Audio/Video/Article Resource Directory
erickybarra.com/resource-dire...
The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox
stpaulcenter.com/product/the-...
E-Book The Origin of the Papacy: The Patristic Logic
/ new-e-book-93618805
The Just Shall Live by Faith
www.amazon.com/Just-Shall-Liv...
The Filioque
www.amazon.com/Filioque-Revis...
Melchizedek and the Last Supper
www.amazon.com/Melchizedek-La...
The Church Fathers on Rebaptism
www.amazon.com/Church-Fathers...
Erick Ybarra on Facebook
/ erickybarra2016
Erick Ybarra on Instagram
Classical_Christian_Thought
Erick Ybarra on Twitter
/ erickybarra3 - Zábava
![The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [Introduction]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mVSlhmjvDB0/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [Introduction]](/img/tr.png)
Thanks for having me on, it was a great discussion!
The apostolic college slash bishop infallibility is a good way out of sedevacantism.
32:24 LOL you're using the same argument that I use. I also usually said if all bishops are Peter, then which bishops is John, Thomas, Matthew etc?
47:44 Ben, where does St. Leo talk about different levels of Petrine office? I must have missed that.
Hy !
I really like your insight in history of the Church
As a Catholic, I am curious about how to explain to myself that the Bishop of Rome is not the Universal Bishop.
Additionally, how can we justify the belief that the successor of Peter is the head of the Church, with universal authority, while apostolic fathers believed simontaneously that no Bishop should exercise authority in another Bishop's territory.
Seems like seeds of Orthodox and Catholic beliefs were present in their letters
Thank you for reading !!
Appreciate any help or comment 🙂
Ben and Erick are the GOATs! 🐐
Idk, Augustine and Jerome was a pretty wild time too.
This has to be hands down the best polemicist CZcams channel. I mean that in a good way. Please try to find a date to do another round table episode! Love you channel Erick
@ContriteBlackCatholicyou’d like albrecht
@ContriteBlackCatholicYou'd also like Sam.Shamoun, who does alot of collab work with William. Their series with Elijah Yasi on the Immaculate Conception has been 🔥
The difference between Catholic and Protestant apologetics: Catholics argue FOR something while Protestants argue AGAINST something!
When the entire premise for their existence is to protest AGAINST something, they have very little to argue FOR.
@@Ruudes1483 Catholics gave the name protestants to people who got sick of the CC and left. "Protestants" dont care enough about the CC to protest about it. If you want to be catholic, thats fine.
I dont protest the CC. I make fun of its stone age voodoo. The fancy head dress and colorful costumes, the totem poles and Bozos on their knees befor them.
@@peterzinya1 My experience has been that Protestants are far more interested in what the Catholic Church is up to than the other way around. You’re like crazy ex-girlfriends who routinely stalk us. It’s pathetic. Do something more wholesome with your free time.
@@FideiDefensatrix Say friend, do me a favor please, tell me if you see my comment. I dont see it. Its gone but has happened befor.
That said, what youre suggesting is i dont watch the news anymore. I kinda keep an eye on all the corruption going on in the whole world, if that is humanly possible. Im not going to say i like reading about all the sick child rape by priests in the CC. Then there is left the ruined lives of these victims. I watch their stories in documentaries. Lots of the stories are so sick, i wanna cry.
You would like it if I ....."pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
You are right that my time could be spent better. Ive got tons of study to do.
As long as the official position of the CC is that no prots are allowed in heaven, Im going to be here to rub its nose in its own mess.
@@peterzinya1 Protestant churches are just as guilty, if not more so, of child sex abuse. Philip Jenkins, a Protestant, wrote in his book, “Pedophiles and Priests, Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis,” that 0.2 to 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy had been guilty of pedophilia while 10 percent of Protestant ministers had been found guilty of sexual misconduct with a 2 percent to 3 percent pedophilia rate. Somehow the media have focused on the Catholic Church’s problem with pedophilia while neglecting the same issue in Protestant churches.
And don’t try to act as if the Catholic Church is the only exclusivist church out there. There are plenty of Protestants who don’t even consider us to be Christians. Many consider us to be pagans. At the very least, we still consider you Christian.
Great show! Let me just give a comment here about Ubi’s “Byzantine flattery” theory in trying to prove that, if the 6th Ecumenical Council used hyperbolic language to describe a perpetual and orthodox Empire concerning the “gates of hell” not prevailing against it, then all language using the Petrine divine promise is automatically honorific as a consequence. If that were true, we would have to concede that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the first “flatterer” in the topic, by using His famous ‘empty’ words in the Gospel to Peter, as in this (bad) Eastern Orthodox claim. There is obviously a better case for them to formulate than that. But we just know it isn’t the case because Christ indeed constituted Peter’s role to be of leadership inside the Apostolic collegiate. So they should try harder to dispute what that leadership means, not to pretend this ecclesiological divine constitution is honorific. For starters, this terrible Ubi’s equivalentism simply just doesn’t logically follow.
Besides, the Council also said that the Emperor was “the keeper of the orthodox faith” or “the foundation of the Churches”. So Ubi’s solution is to say that the Council was being hyperbolic and honorific to the Empire/ to the Emperor just as it was with the Roman See. The words about Rome, therefore, were non-literal and a obsequiousness, a mere flattery. For me, there is really no real surprises here, because the Roman/Byzantine Empire was assumed to be the unitive concrete and material reality in which (and with which) Eastern Orthodoxy was supposed to function, considering that the “imperialization” of the Church is, in other words, co-existential to Eastern Orthodoxy in itself. Nevertheless, I must say all this illogical equivalentism is surprisingly misplaced, since 1) the Emperor didn’t claim to be guarded by Christ in his teaching office (as if he even had one in the first place!), let alone by a divine Petrine promise; 2) the Emperor didn’t claim that the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the rock upon which the Church was built, even if some language related to that could be used, nor he claimed that the Petrine promises referred to the Emperor as a kind of Successor of St Peter. Yet those were EXACTLY the claims of Pope Agatho. What these Eastern Orthodox may choose to pick is usually the inaugural salutation to the Emperor, as the one responsible to convene the Council (in Constantiple, the Imperial capital), but NOT in response of any positive substantive claims of the Emperor, either relating to Christ’s promise, or to Peter’s succession, or to the guardianship from doctrinal error. Agatho, on the contrary, ACTUALLY made the claims. Only a thoroughly ignorant commentator will miss it here.
And St Agatho states that concerning the Apostolic See of Rome not once, not twice. Many times he affirms the same in his letters to the 6th EC: the unblemished state of the Roman church, linking it, as in so many of the dense Patristic testimony, to a divine promise made by Christ Jesus to the Apostle Peter (which is perpetual, and invested in the successors). What does the Council do then? Not only it does not rebuke him or manifests a caveat, but acclaims the pope’s letters as if they were spoken by (and through) Peter’s authority, which is - as one can obviously notice - the very matter of the positive and substantive claim we are talking about in the part of Agatho! How can Ubi Petrus be so deceptive? Therefore, there is no possible similarity between Agatho’s/ Roman See’s and the Emperor’s /Empire’s case for anyone to even come with this unintelligent equivalentism, simply to try to justify the “Byzantine flattery” theory. Even knowing for a fact that Emperors sometimes acted (unfortunately) in a quasi-episcopal capacity during Ecumenical Councils, there is no ecclesiological basis for any role that connects the Empire to the trueness of doctrines of faith and morals, even if the language of orthodoxy sometimes was connected to the role of guardianship that the Empire offered the Church in some salutations. But ‘au contrarie’, any imperial role like that is even definable as a canonical anomaly and in some cases the Church simply conceded to have Emperors acting at all, if not in complex and grievous circumstances. I honestly don’t know how one could have missed the difference between those cases; and, even worse, I don’t know how people can think the Council could have missed to rebuke Agatho’s claim, but there isn’t even a remotely similar claim coming from the Emperor to the Council (to adhere to, supposedly), like Agatho did - and it was received by the Greek bishops with acclamation.
God bless you all!
Well said.
I don't think apologists talk enough about Timothy and Titus as proof of authoritative successors of the Apostles after apostles die. Maybe more relevant against Protestantism but y'all brought it up.
Really enjoyed this guys!
Thanks for watching
This was really incredible gentlemen.
Still working through your book Erick, I think it is really great!
This is a good supplement.
Thanks, Eric & Ben. Great show.
Excellent discussion.
That was excellent 💯
Great stuff.
What are your thoughts on the circular argument george Salmon made arguing against papal infalibility?
Sharing this.
Dis gon be good
👍
In early church, untill this day, from all bishops that wrote letters to one another, and all Saints, there was not one that had image of "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" or "Gates of hell will not prevail against her.." that wasnt adressed to succesor of Peter, or Bishop of Rome..
Not even one Bishop recieved letter that said that His church, or Church as a whole has kesy or prommises recieved by Peter unless they are in communion with him.. only when Peter was mentioned this image was mentioned ..
Feel Free To Chek It Out And Prove Me Wrong
Thank you
listen to the video
Presupposing this logic is accurate, how would you reconcile the following? 1. The Pope has officially declared an incorrect doctrine, i.e. “Mankind has infinite dignity”. 2. Mankind cannot have infinite dignity, he is finite and only God is infinite, and further this contradicts previous teaching.
Relativize the meaning of "infinite". We do the same thing in order to justify the Patristic theology which says God was crucified, or that we worship the Lamb through His images made by man, etc., etc.
Even if it was heretical, according to the logic laid out in this video, it wouldn’t pose a problem for papal infallibility.
I agree with you !Know one is infinite except God. Jesus was God because of his divine person. We worship his humanity not in itself but because it belong to the second person of the blessed trinity.
Thoughts on why Catholics are becoming Orthodoxy despite knowing these arguments? I also read several EO in YT comments who become Catholic but it seems the EO are the loudest on YT lol.
So you think Catholics are becoming orthodox because of CZcams comments??? If that's your logic then Catholicism is fastest growing religion since there are many of Catholic videos with comments of ppl converting to Catholicism
Because presently a lot of Catholics are lacking in full faith in this promise of Christ, and not only are not willing to witness to it but practically speaking are bearing false witness against it because of their attitudes towards the present occupant of the office. Thus if people are looking for Apostolic Christianity they think they best go with Orthodoxy because they think our claims are being falsified.
I would kindly suggest to not get your news on who is becoming what based solely on internet youtub apologist. In Easter 2024, catechumens coming into the Catholic Church reached record numbers world wide. In several Dioceses in the USA (Los Angeles for example), the numbers were > 2,000 catechumens (people never baptized in the Holy Trinity) and over 1,500 candidates for full communion . The Diocese of Fort Worth Texas had over 1,500 candidates received into Full Communion from protestant confessions who hold to Trinitarian baptism. In the Diocese of Houston-Galveston, it was about 2,400, In San Antonio about 1,800. In the Diocese of Knoxville TN, heart of the Protestant bible belt, the number was over 600.
@@greenchristendom4116 All catholic and orthodox claims are false. Jesus is a man, not some sick sad religion.
@palermotrapani9067
I'm aware, and I am grateful for it. Yet, that really has nothing to do with my question.
physiognomy checks please
If documents like the chieti and Alexandria document concede the papacy didn’t act in the first millennium as it does now why the change? Another thing I’d like to bring up is the church didn’t teach in the first 1,000 years that communion with Rome was necessary for salvation. And if it did there are a lot of saints that are venerated in the Catholic Church who were not in communion with Rome when they died. It just seems more plausible that Romes primacy was contingent on them being orthodox in their teaching and faith than them being the only patriarchal see that would never fall away because of a special promise which was given for sure to Peter. It just doesn’t follow that it also applies to Rome.
Knocked it out the park.
All of these objections are addressed (in one way or another) in the course of our discussion.
Well sort of but that is only if I accept your logical presupposition that the promise Jesus made to Peter uniquely applies to Rome. I would like to counter with that with some of your argumentation you used in the video regarding an anathema. It’s not disputed that honorius was condemned at the 6th ecumenical council for being a heretic and in fact anathemas were attached to his condemnation. Which is on the basis of the authority you used to defend the 7th council for its condemnation of those that do not venerate icons, which is “were 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with them”. I know the common response to this is that well he wasn’t really a heretic and the councils can get certain parts wrong. That might answer the ” was he a heretic” question but it does not answer whether the bishop of Rome could teach heresy. It seems to be the mindset of the council that he could. It also seems to be the mindset of the council that they had the authority to excommunicate him. This idea is very foreign to Roman Catholic ecclesiology. There is more I’d like to say but this comment is probably long enough
1) First of all, documents produced as joint declarations confected by International Theological Committees and/ or gatherings of intellectual references on both sides are not magisterial in nature. Even if a bishop participates in those discussions, he doesn’t act in his episcopal capacity, since he is not teaching, governing and sanctifying his very episcopal jurisdiction. Bishops may act as theologians too. That’s not to mean they need not to receive considerations and thought, yet that’s precisely what they are in nature: their sole objective is to push theological discussion further.
2) The Chieti Agreement is built upon the concept of Justinian pentarchy and the ecclesiastical ‘taxis’. It is poorly constructed because the text, due to the pressure of the Eastern Orthodox legacies, apparently leaves room to the conflation of ecclesiastical canon law and the ecclesiological constitution of the Church. That’s what some (bad) Internet EO apologists will do. All it does it to reference to the honors of the churches as we could retrospectively view in our common historical patrimony. Therefore, it pushes up, predictably, to the common ground that the See of Rome was granted a primacy of honor in the whole world. That’s sufficient to say that Rome would never lose its position to Constantinople due to a sort of “translatio imperii” into the East, for example. But obviously it didn’t say that in the Church of the first millennium Rome had a “honorific” role only, without jurisdictional powers, nor it affirmed the obvious reality that the popes in Rome perpetually had, due to an unparalleled Petrine role that no interpretation ever gave to any other bishop or patriarch, universal injunctions in the East that were not conditionally submitted to further synodical confirmation. What those injunctions are is the real dispute, but the document never touches it. Therefore, Chieti arrived where it could (being a mere joint declaration).
2.1) Chieti states that “the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East” (§ 19), which is absolutely true, since the Eastern churches are up to this day “sui iuris” (or, as in Greek, “auto nomous”: that means guided by “own law” or “self regulated”) and, just as an example, they don’t follow the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (actualized in 1983), which is applicable to the Latin Church only, but their own canons in accordance with the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO; ‘Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium’). Autocephaly is the ecclesiastical anomaly that is rigorously estranged from canonical independence. The Church is not a multi-headed governed body. Yet this all comes to the *absolute error* among EO, all again, in conflating ecclesiastical canon law and ecclesiology. If you operate under that error, it’s very easy to falsify the scopes of Chieti between the lines, either you do it deliberately (trying to deceive others for your own anti-Catholic purposes) or not (due to ignorance, which permits you to be more easily deceived by the first ones).
All again, Catholicism claims to see the fundamentals of ecclesiology on the revealed texts of Scripture and on Apostolic Tradition (I mean it with capital “T”) and then defines its ecclesiastical canon law, imperial privileges and the “taxis” of churches under customs from a prior set of norms of ecclesiology; Eastern Orthodoxy, on the exact reverse, sees the proclaimed ecclesiastical canon law of councils, imperial privileges and “taxis” of churches consolidated through the summation of canons under customs and then defines its ecclesiology from a prior set of canon law. So Catholics believe the papacy must have its fundamentals on the biblical text and the vivid tradition of the functioning apostolic collegiate (Peter in relation to the other apostles and vice-versa) because the Church define ecclesiology under the revealed norms, not elsewhere.
3) The Alexandrian document of 2023 is a continuation to the Chieti document. The latter deals with synodality and primacy in the first millennium; the former, in the second millennium. All again, people even refuse to read the document in its very context. It says that the second millennium, due to the schism and the further necessities of both sides, saw a concentration of power in the Latin church and a fragmentation of power in the Greek church. In a sense, that’s an honest take. But it reads that “The Church is not properly understood as a pyramid, with a primate governing from the top, but neither is it properly understood as a federation of self-sufficient Churches. Our historical study of synodality and primacy in the second millennium has shown the inadequacy of both of these views” (§ 5.1). But the problem is that the Catholic model doesn’t alienate, in its ecclesiological constitution, the role of synodality, even if it is sub-dimensioned; on the contrary, the Eastern Orthodox model of autocephalous churches does indeed alienate the model of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the church of the first millennium. One needs only to understand where truth is to see the ecclesiological unsurpassable problem that is co-existential to EO.
“And you will know truth, and truth will set you free” (John 8, 32). God bless!
@@masterchief8179 if you accept Vatican 1, which states you much accept even ordinary teachings to be in communion, then you accept Alexandra. I've never seen this much cope.
Orthodox here didn’t find the Saint Nicephorus bit very convincing because Rome was still Orthodox. All the patriarchs had to agree for a council to be ecumenical
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the Papacy is true when the Papacy is orthodox?
@@Erick_Ybarra no sir. I’m saying that the quote could be read as saying that in order for dogma to be definitive, it requires the consent of all Patriarchs including Rome.
@@matthewhamstein3811 Oh, I see. Those quotations show clearly that Nicephorus does not see the necessary-ness of Rome to be reduced simply to another equal in a series that require each to consent. That is clear from when Nicephorus says that the Throne of Peter presides over the episcopate and that, from Apostolic order, it is to them to determine what is believed at Councils. If you add the views of Theodore of Studium, not to mention Pope Nicholas, Hadrian II, and John VIII, the view you are espousing might explain his words simply does not have any explanatory power. I go further into the sources in my book on the Papacy
@@Erick_Ybarra I want to get your book on the papacy and have Craig Truglias, figured I’d read them in succession and compare notes, which would you recommend doing first?
@@matthewhamstein3811 Probably read Truglia's first since you are Orthodox
2:24 sadly jesus was the word made flesh. His teaching's are too simplistic for the deep theological minded people. Imagine the disciples we're simple fishermen and shepherds.
They werent simple and the Scriptures are replete with examples of people walking away from Jesus because they didnt understand His teachings. The Apostles also had issue with understanding quite a bit throughout the Gospel and Jesus had to expound/explain things further for them or even outright rebuke and correct them. So I dunno what you mean by simple.
Even today we cant lay claim to.simplicity when all of Cristendom can barely even agree on basic tenets of the faith.
@@chad_hominem if you read my comment correct l said the parables are from simple everyday observations, not deep theological abstract meanings. Of course they misunderstood Jesus especially when he claimed he was one with the father God of Israel. Anyhow 400 yrs had past between the last prophet Malachi and jesus,what belief's we're taught in that period should be studied ,to understand why jesus was misunderstood . Lastly the influence of the internet can confuse , and the invention of the printing press in Luther's time had same reactions, the Catholic church sola dominion over what was taught and preached was challenged