Responding to Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Case Against the Papacy - Part 3
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Welcome to CCT (Classical Christian Thought). In this video, we have the third part of a series responding to Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Case Against the Papacy which he gave in a short presentation on Cameron Bertuzzi's CZcams Channel Capturing Christianity. That presentation can be found here: • The Case AGAINST The P...
Other links related a historical case for the Papacy in light of Dr. Ortlund's objections:
Jerome and the Office of Bishop: An Excursus to the Discussion - (erickybarra.or...)
Saint Peter, the Rock, and the Keys: Symbolic Representations of the Catholic Church - (erickybarra.or...)
Yes, St. Augustine Really Did Mean “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita Est” - (erickybarra.or...)
(erickybarra.or...)
St. Cyprian on the Roman See: Ecclesia Principalis Unde Unitas Sacerdotalis Exorta Est - (erickybarra.or...)
More on St. Cyprian of Carthage - (erickybarra.or...)
Cyprianic-Nausea: Anglican Scholar Turns To Rome - (erickybarra.or...)
Papal Office is internal to the Episcopate , Some Notes On The Mutual Dependency of Bishops to the Pope, Citations from the Church Fathers - (erickybarra.or...)
18 Non-Catholic Church Historians who Speak to the Papal Claims of Pope St. Leo the Great (400-461) - (erickybarra.or...)
~~~~~~~~~~
To purchase my book, "The Filioque: Revisiting the Doctrinal Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox" follow this link: www.amazon.com...
To purchase my book, "Melchizedek and the Last Supper: Biblical and Patristic Evidence for the Sacrifice of the Mass" follow this link: www.amazon.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~
Become a monthly patron here: / classicalchristianthought
You can also make a 1-time donation at PayPal.me/erickybarra
Thank you for your support!
#Papacy #PapalPrimacy #ChurchHistory #Catholicism #Protestantism #CapturingChristianity #TruthUnites
Great, detailed responses Erick. Looking forward to your book on the papacy, your two recent books have been very helpful and informative.
Great points Erick. The most blatant inconsistency with St.Cyprian to me is that he tries to act like the Bishop is Peter and the priests essentially under his jurisdiction are like the other apostles. Yet we know the other Apostles were Bishops so saying there is no Bishop of Bishops then just doesnt make sense.
Clement of Rome clearly talk about "Levite, Priest, High Priest" hierarchy, Deacons are called levites everywhere in the early church.
Ignatius in the letter to the Romans mentioned the Bishop of Syria.
This series is great Erick!
St. Cyprian will always be an interesting individual.
St. Cyprian of Carthage:
" . . . [the heretics] dare even to set sail. . . to the chair of Peter and the Chief Church [Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source. . . whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for heresy to have entrance" [Letters 59 (55), 14].
St. Jerome Hieronymus:
"Blessed Cyprian. . . condemning the baptism of heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, *who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and the twenty-second from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain.* Eventually the very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree" [The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 23; PL 23:186].
St. Vincent of Lerins:
"Once on a time then, Agripinnus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine - and he was the first who held it - that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, *that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place,* so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: "Let there be no innovation - nothing but what has been handed down" [Commonitorium 6:16; PL 50:645-6].
Are you sure that’s the correct citation for Cyprian? I can’t find it.
@@djrobinson6602
Depending on the collection, numbering may vary. It might be easier to simply look for the Letter to Cornelius. Possibly, somewhere around 54 at New Advent.
The highlighted Latin will be:
Navigare audent, et ad Petri cathediam atque et Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schis maticis et profanis litteras ferre, nee cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides, apostolo prsedicante, laudata est ; ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.
Or,
Navigare audent ad Petri cathedram et ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. . .
Essentially: "They dare to sail, to the See of Peter, to the Chief Church, from which sacerdotal unity has its source; to whom heresy cannot access."
The word "perfidia" was used in Early Ecclesial Latin for heresy.
I am pretty sure that even the Anti-Catholic Polemicists of old such as Richard Field (Church of England) have the same Latin phrasing in their works.
Erick has a few articles on this as well:
1. "St. Cyprian on the Roman See: Ecclesia Principalis Unde Unitas Sacerdotalis Exorta Est."
2. "More on St. Cyprian of Carthage"
3. "Papal jurisdiction & The Universal Petrine Episcopate"
Just simply head over to his site.
@@serviam4161 I found it. This is how New Advent words it:
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics- to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”[Letter 54.14]
So good to listen to you, I really enjoy it. Easy ti grasp, yet one can learn so much.
@YAJUN YUAN thanks ;)
1:00:05
"The bishops is the successor of Peter because the bishops has jurisdiction over thelocal Church. Right? Well if that's the case then the bishops having jurisdiction over the local Church has to be also read back into the apostles. So then who was Peter the bishop of, in order for all bishops to be analogously successor to Peter? Well that mean Peter must also had episcopal jurisdiction over the apostle. That's the only way you can mantain the paralellism between Peter vis-a-vis the apostle and bishops vis-a-vis the Churches"
That's ingenious, Erick.
@YAJUN YUAN The Apostles in a certain sense are successors of Peter. Here is my argument.
1.) Peters power of binding and loosing is universal as attested in Matthew 16 where Jesus says Peters power is in the plural when he states “bound in HEAVENS.” The other Apostles are in the singular where it says “bound in HEAVEN.”
2.) The Apostles in Matthew 18 speak of the power to bind and loose when “two or more” agree. Peters is singular.
3.) Since the other Apostles receive LATER and in a diffused manner what Peter received earlier and in a singular manner then in some since the Authority granted to Peter redounds to the other Apostles. The other apostles hinge on Peters authority.
4.) Peter is said by Christ to be singularly prayed for. After being prayed for, it would be Peter who “strengthens” the brethren including the other Apostles. For his faith alone was prayed for by Christ that it “fail not.” That is, God divinely preserved Peter. “If God didn’t preserve a seed we all would’ve become like Sodom and all like Ghomorrah.”
The seed Christ preserved was Peter. Now a seed is the principle from which everything grows out of, including the authority of the other Apostles. For though all were apostles yet not all were given the name of “stone” which is undeniably a share in Christ own name (the stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone). If Christ is the cornerstone, then what is Peter who is also called “stone”? Only the one who was prayed for that his faith doesn’t fail by Christ Himself is rightly called a “rock” of foundation.
GBU Eric 🙏🏻
I've heard some Protestants insist that some of the most papal statments of Cyprian were interpolated later and not original. Have you commented on this? Can't seem to find much Catholic response to this other than old Catholic Encyclopedia.
Dude, you are THOUROUGH
Am I right in thinking that Jerome was pro-papacy until he was not chosen to succeed Damasus? After that we find writing explaining the bishopric as a utilitarian office rather than a divine institution.
Let's go Ybarra
26:28 very good discussion on the 3rd canon. In addition I would add that linguistically the canon is not putting Constantinople on a higher ecclesiastical plane or even equal to Rome. It all turns on what meaning the one word after(“μετά”) has. Does it mean afterwards in a chronological sense, that is to say that Rome had its day of primacy now it’s Constantinople time to rise? Or does it mean after in the sense of hierarchical? The commentaries look on this as the latter. Meaning that the primacy of Rome then(“after”)comes Constantinople in stature. This was the interpretation the Byzantine ecclesiastical historian Zonaras. The late French Russian Orthodox Archbishop Pierre L’Hullier in his book The Church of the Ancient Councils wrote that Zonaras viewed “that the preposition indicates the inferiority of rank.”
Zonaras differed from Aristenus on this point but Zonaras appealed to Justinian’s Novel 131 of his comments on Church canons and also to the Synod of Trullos which also viewed Constantinople as after Rome in a secondary position.
Hello chicago618!
Thank you for your comments. I rely heavily on the late L'Hullier in the chapter of my book on this question, as well.
@@Erick_Ybarra can’t wait!
I don't think one can say Ortlund is honest in his historical presentation of the papacy - the massive historical errors that he makes cannot be excused in any person with minimal intellectual credentials