the way thrones is plural at the end of the Hadrian letter throws me off. makes me think its 2 concurrent thrones being occupied. but then i think what throne did Paul have for someone to succeed into if not the one vicar mentioned earlier in the letter.
"And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have established it as a written decree that all who after them are to be 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬, will hold their Faith and remain in it to the end." And if you read it closely, the parallel between "Vicar" and "thrones" is not the most important component. Rather, the focus upon the Emperors following "the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles". In other words, Hadrian is telling them if they will follow the Roman Church of Peter and Paul, the prerogatives given to these 2 (i.e., keys) redounds to all their successors will come to the defense of the Byzantine Empire. And who, in the context, continues these prerogatives? The Vicar (singular) of Peter and Paul, ie the Roman Pontiff.
Or it should be understood (and was probably understood by the Greek bishops present) that "thrones" does not mean "two concurrent thrones" of respectively Peter and Paul, but all the Apostolic Churches displayed in the whole world. The plural is not limited to only two referent, but can refer to the many "thrones" that constitute the universal Church, symbolically stemming from both Peter and Paul (Peter being traditionally Apostle to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles). This plural in the Greek is especially intended to include more than just one local See. This is also consistent with the use of Peter in the Letter of the Emperor at the beginning of Nicæa II.
Sorry, already watched it on Daniel's channel. Really good dialogue though! I think you came out on top because you went straight to the text and had better reasons for your interpretations, reasons that often went unaddressed/uncontested by Craig.
This dialogue was very fruitful, and I learned a lot from both you and Craig! The tone was charitable, and it was more of a conversation as opposed to a debate. I am EO, and feel that Craig came out on top - but I would also add that it's obvious both of you are well studied on these matters. We need more fruitful conversations like this between RC and EO!
I appreciate Craig honestly conceding so much. A lot of this is far over my head, but I appreciate the discussion. Maybe one day I'll be in y'all's level!
Erick, I just want to tip my hat off to you for this dialogue. We've gone back and forth a few times in the comment sections, but I've always appreciated your willingness to engage others who disagree with you and your commitment to doing so calmly and respectfully. Ultimately, I think the historical research can only bring someone to the point where they realize they need another principle, outside of the history, to push them in the direction of one set of seemingly implausible and awkward interpretations that make the whole picture fit together, over the other. Roman Catholics tend to resolve the data by "staring" at the chain of Papal quotes through history, and, I think if they're honest, an intensely felt anti Protestant reactionary sense that without a Pope like figure, we're left in a place of epistemic chaos. What's most compelling for most intentionally Orthodox people, even if they do not voice it, is the undeniable spiritual continuity and hierarchy of emphasis and values, from the NT to the writings of contemporary Orthodox Saints. What floated to the top for Christ and the Apostles is really exactly what floats to the top for practically every contemporary Orthodox writer, Saint or not. It's amazing to me that I'm not lying to people when I say that the vast majority of conversions to Orthodoxy I have heard about involve tears. It's also amazing to think that there is an option on the table where the conversion process looks like what you find in the Gospels! Just the other day, I spontaneously took a Chinese classmate to a cathedral here in St Petersburg. We happened to arrive at the beginning of vigil. I asked to stay for a few minutes, and after that tapped him on the shoulder and told him we could leave if he wanted to. He said a very strong phrase in Russian which basically means, "It's not necessary." He was hesitant to go to the church with me at first and I told him not to think I was expecting him to do what he would see me do (cross myself and kiss icons), but by the end of it, he was crossing himself. We stayed for the whole three hours. I think it's a terrible mistake to interpret this as merely aesthetic attraction. It may also be insincere, if the person is traditionally minded and feels like the post VII liturgical collapse is a horrendous tragedy that has practically wiped out the sense of the Sacred amongst most ordinary RCs. Still, there's a sense in which what I'm talking about is aesthetic, in the sense that it was the spiritual beauty of Christ that made people break down and weep and worship at His feet and in the sense that converted the entire nation of the Eastern Slavs. It's all over the OT and the NT, more than anything else He came to soften our hearts, not to change our minds so that the picture it affirms corresponds to the one outside of it. Orthodoxy does justice to the idea that the Church is the Body of Christ which touches and changes those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I understand what you're saying, but you should know that I've also seen testimonies of people crying during mass in Catholic churches. Some didn't understand what was happening to them, as many were non-believers. Some people, just entering a church to pass the time, were seized by an indescribable feeling that would eventually lead them to conversion. There was even a Jewish man who had an appointment but arrived too early for it and to pass the time decided to visit a Catholic church as a historical monument and sat on the bench and without understanding why he felt an indescribable love in his heart and felt in the arm of God even though he knew nothing about the Catholic Church. He said to himself, if this is heaven, I'd like to die. Testimonies like that are plentiful. What's strange is that I've followed similar testimonies among evangelicals, where some even claim to have seen Christ and radically changed their lives to give themselves to Christ. So if we want to base ourselves solely on spiritual testimonies, how do we discriminate the true from the false? Because each branch has similar testimonies. You speak of desacralization since Vatican 2, yet Catholicism continues to grow and in countries outside the West, some people die as martyrs for the Catholic faith. You speak of desacralization since Vatican 2, yet in the time of the apostles there were no sacred elements, no elegant vestments, no incense, no gold cups, no giant statutes, no sacred ornaments and nothing of what we call sacred today. Christ's very first mass was celebrated around a table at an ordinary meal, and Christians have continued to celebrate in this way, as St. Paul tells us, Even in Rome, the first Christians celebrated in caves, yet what era has produced more saints than this one? Next to them, we are nothing. According to your beliefs, since there was no sacred element, they must have been timid Christians. If your faith is based solely on sacred elements, then you have a problem. Your faith can be based on feelings alone. I invite you to read the stories of missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier who evangelized Japan, and yet without these sacred elements, the new converts were ready to give their lives for the faith, and many died as martyrs. Sacred elements are all very well, but they are not the essence of faith. The only thing that is the essence of faith is the body of Christ, which alone is necessary, along with his doctrine.
You can tell Craig is a lawyer in his personal life... he's gifted at creating "reasonable doubt" about something that for the first 800 years of the church, there seemed to be no doubt.
Not a lawyer, but a demon possessed heretic. Pope St. Leo IX, Epistle To Michael Of Constantinople, AD 1054: "Therefore let heresies and schisms cease, and soon there will be no scandal to those loving the law of God, but much peace. Let whoever glories in the Christian name cease to curse and wound the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church; for whoever dishonors the wife [i.e. the Church] honors the father of the house in vain."
Triglias arguments are weak in my opinion...It's hard to imagine that fathers who accepted letters were thinking in Truglias way, although im Eastern Orthodox...
the way thrones is plural at the end of the Hadrian letter throws me off. makes me think its 2 concurrent thrones being occupied. but then i think what throne did Paul have for someone to succeed into if not the one vicar mentioned earlier in the letter.
That's correct. The prior reference to "their vicar" (singular) is the entity that occupies their thrones (Peter/Paul).
"And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have established it as a written decree that all who after them are to be 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬, will hold their Faith and remain in it to the end."
And if you read it closely, the parallel between "Vicar" and "thrones" is not the most important component. Rather, the focus upon the Emperors following "the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles". In other words, Hadrian is telling them if they will follow the Roman Church of Peter and Paul, the prerogatives given to these 2 (i.e., keys) redounds to all their successors will come to the defense of the Byzantine Empire. And who, in the context, continues these prerogatives? The Vicar (singular) of Peter and Paul, ie the Roman Pontiff.
@@Erick_Ybarra good point about the chief apostles part I didn't catch that at all
Or it should be understood (and was probably understood by the Greek bishops present) that "thrones" does not mean "two concurrent thrones" of respectively Peter and Paul, but all the Apostolic Churches displayed in the whole world. The plural is not limited to only two referent, but can refer to the many "thrones" that constitute the universal Church, symbolically stemming from both Peter and Paul (Peter being traditionally Apostle to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles). This plural in the Greek is especially intended to include more than just one local See. This is also consistent with the use of Peter in the Letter of the Emperor at the beginning of Nicæa II.
Sorry, already watched it on Daniel's channel. Really good dialogue though! I think you came out on top because you went straight to the text and had better reasons for your interpretations, reasons that often went unaddressed/uncontested by Craig.
This dialogue was very fruitful, and I learned a lot from both you and Craig! The tone was charitable, and it was more of a conversation as opposed to a debate. I am EO, and feel that Craig came out on top - but I would also add that it's obvious both of you are well studied on these matters.
We need more fruitful conversations like this between RC and EO!
Hey, you patiently heard our positions. For that I give you credit. We can respectfully disagree. I'm just a human being, hehe :)
Thanks for watching!
I appreciate Craig honestly conceding so much. A lot of this is far over my head, but I appreciate the discussion. Maybe one day I'll be in y'all's level!
Erick, I just want to tip my hat off to you for this dialogue. We've gone back and forth a few times in the comment sections, but I've always appreciated your willingness to engage others who disagree with you and your commitment to doing so calmly and respectfully.
Ultimately, I think the historical research can only bring someone to the point where they realize they need another principle, outside of the history, to push them in the direction of one set of seemingly implausible and awkward interpretations that make the whole picture fit together, over the other. Roman Catholics tend to resolve the data by "staring" at the chain of Papal quotes through history, and, I think if they're honest, an intensely felt anti Protestant reactionary sense that without a Pope like figure, we're left in a place of epistemic chaos.
What's most compelling for most intentionally Orthodox people, even if they do not voice it, is the undeniable spiritual continuity and hierarchy of emphasis and values, from the NT to the writings of contemporary Orthodox Saints. What floated to the top for Christ and the Apostles is really exactly what floats to the top for practically every contemporary Orthodox writer, Saint or not. It's amazing to me that I'm not lying to people when I say that the vast majority of conversions to Orthodoxy I have heard about involve tears. It's also amazing to think that there is an option on the table where the conversion process looks like what you find in the Gospels!
Just the other day, I spontaneously took a Chinese classmate to a cathedral here in St Petersburg. We happened to arrive at the beginning of vigil. I asked to stay for a few minutes, and after that tapped him on the shoulder and told him we could leave if he wanted to. He said a very strong phrase in Russian which basically means, "It's not necessary." He was hesitant to go to the church with me at first and I told him not to think I was expecting him to do what he would see me do (cross myself and kiss icons), but by the end of it, he was crossing himself. We stayed for the whole three hours.
I think it's a terrible mistake to interpret this as merely aesthetic attraction. It may also be insincere, if the person is traditionally minded and feels like the post VII liturgical collapse is a horrendous tragedy that has practically wiped out the sense of the Sacred amongst most ordinary RCs. Still, there's a sense in which what I'm talking about is aesthetic, in the sense that it was the spiritual beauty of Christ that made people break down and weep and worship at His feet and in the sense that converted the entire nation of the Eastern Slavs. It's all over the OT and the NT, more than anything else He came to soften our hearts, not to change our minds so that the picture it affirms corresponds to the one outside of it. Orthodoxy does justice to the idea that the Church is the Body of Christ which touches and changes those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I understand what you're saying, but you should know that I've also seen testimonies of people crying during mass in Catholic churches. Some didn't understand what was happening to them, as many were non-believers.
Some people, just entering a church to pass the time, were seized by an indescribable feeling that would eventually lead them to conversion.
There was even a Jewish man who had an appointment but arrived too early for it and to pass the time decided to visit a Catholic church as a historical monument and sat on the bench and without understanding why he felt an indescribable love in his heart and felt in the arm of God even though he knew nothing about the Catholic Church. He said to himself, if this is heaven, I'd like to die.
Testimonies like that are plentiful.
What's strange is that I've followed similar testimonies among evangelicals, where some even claim to have seen Christ and radically changed their lives to give themselves to Christ.
So if we want to base ourselves solely on spiritual testimonies, how do we discriminate the true from the false? Because each branch has similar testimonies.
You speak of desacralization since Vatican 2, yet Catholicism continues to grow and in countries outside the West, some people die as martyrs for the Catholic faith.
You speak of desacralization since Vatican 2, yet in the time of the apostles there were no sacred elements, no elegant vestments, no incense, no gold cups, no giant statutes, no sacred ornaments and nothing of what we call sacred today. Christ's very first mass was celebrated around a table at an ordinary meal, and Christians have continued to celebrate in this way, as St. Paul tells us,
Even in Rome, the first Christians celebrated in caves, yet what era has produced more saints than this one? Next to them, we are nothing.
According to your beliefs, since there was no sacred element, they must have been timid Christians.
If your faith is based solely on sacred elements, then you have a problem. Your faith can be based on feelings alone.
I invite you to read the stories of missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier who evangelized Japan, and yet without these sacred elements, the new converts were ready to give their lives for the faith, and many died as martyrs.
Sacred elements are all very well, but they are not the essence of faith.
The only thing that is the essence of faith is the body of Christ, which alone is necessary, along with his doctrine.
Great work Erick... you give a very powerful witness to the presence of the papacy in the 7th Ecumenical Council.
You can tell Craig is a lawyer in his personal life... he's gifted at creating "reasonable doubt" about something that for the first 800 years of the church, there seemed to be no doubt.
Not a lawyer, but a demon possessed heretic.
Pope St. Leo IX, Epistle To Michael Of Constantinople, AD 1054: "Therefore let heresies and schisms cease, and soon there will be no scandal to those loving the law of God, but much peace. Let whoever glories in the Christian name cease to curse and wound the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church; for whoever dishonors the wife [i.e. the Church] honors the father of the house in vain."
Loved the discussion!
Triglias arguments are weak in my opinion...It's hard to imagine that fathers who accepted letters were thinking in Truglias way, although im Eastern Orthodox...
your pope is weak in my opinion, praying in mosques🤡
this is what I’ve always think of, it’s really hard to argue when they have been accepting the councils and letters for years.
excellent discussion
Somebody needs to check their smoke alarm 😳