Responding to Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Case Against the Papacy - Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Welcome to CCT (Classical Christian Thought). In this video, we have the first 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 where Erick Ybarra speaks on the Papacy where interested listeners can explore:
• Video
Debate with Eastern Orthodox Presbyter Fr. John Ramsey (Phd.) -Part 1 & Part 2
• Orthodox VS Catholic D...
• Papacy Debate Between ...
Matt Fradd (Pints with Aquinas)
• Catholicism & Orthodox...
~~~~~~~~~~
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 #Papal Primacy #Church History #Catholicism #Protestantism #Capturing Christianity #TruthUnites
Thank you for adding to this conversation.
You welcome!
Yeah Eric! I love that your posting on YT. ✝️☦️🙏
Thank you!
Can’t wait to see more videos! Thank you 🙏🏽
That's encouraging!
Thankyou for this video Erick.
God bless
God bless!
This is the channel we have been waiting for
Erick, you are awesome! Your measured speech and careful thinking greatly inspires me to dig deep into the intellectual patrimony of Christianity!
Thank you for the kind words.
Great video, Erick!
Thank you, for your work and dedication. May God bless it!
God bless you
Very very nice, thank you for fueling my friendly discussion with local protestants
No problem! Here to help
Amen!
What an intellectual dedication to the faith. Thank you!
This is brilliant, Erick. Looking forward to watching the rest.
How come I’m finding out now you’re posting on CZcams. Thank you very much for all your work. You’re someone I would love to have as a mentor when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the papacy and Church history. I feel like I still have a lot to learn
Note: Not that I am actually asking you to be a mentor, I’m just saying I admire the amount of study, knowledge, and (most importantly) charity on the topic of the papacy that I wish to be at that level
Thanks fot the kind words!
YBARRA UPLOADED!!! CREATE A PATRON NOW
Looking forward to this! Thanks Erick!
God bless you
Thanks so much for everything you’re about, Erick. I love your content, and I love how thoughtfully and, when dealing with your opponents, charitably you present it. That said, I was wondering, could you release your written out response/transcript? Also, I’m on this journey, and was wondering if maybe we could email…
💯. Email me at erickybarra2010@gmail.com
Let’s goooo!
I love you, man! Huge fan!
Great response! 👏
Thanks!
@YAJUN YUAN hi
Just found out you have your own channel. I subscribed right away. Love your book, and looking forward to your new book on papacy. Any way you can speed up the release?
Hi Fred A!
Thank you for the kind words. I have the Melchizedek and the Last Supper out. I've also released a book on the Filioque controversy between the Greek and Latin divine (11th century). The Papacy book looks like it will be available in October/November 2022. I wish we could speed the process but producing a large book (800 pages) takes a lot of editing and re-viewing before it can be sent to a printer. The book has been finished for more than 1 year in terms of the content.
@@Erick_Ybarra 800 pages, wow. I'm even more hyped up! And yeah, I have the eBook version of your books (sadly, out-of-country shipping fees for physical copies are a bit too much for me). But to be honest, I'd prefer a Verbum version. I don't know if you're familiar with Verbum, but it's an amazing tool for serious research with its cross-referencing features, among many other things. Any chance they'd be available on Verbum (including your papacy book)? I thought you might want to consider that. Thanks.
Edit: And by the way, great discussion, as usual! You put it so eloquently that I'm tempted to transcribe the body of the video verbatim. :))
@@freda7961 I have had discussions with Verbum in the past. I might bring it up to them
Can you put these videos in a playlist on your channel?
Yes I'll try. I'm also creating just the audios for soundcloud
No possibility you could put the name of the book you mentioned at around 35:47 in description notes? Fr. Klaus ? didn’t quite get the last name.
Fr Klaus Schatz "Papal Primacy: Origins to Present"
@@Erick_Ybarra sweet! Thanks. Keep defending our Faith. Look forward to your book.
Did you send this to Cameron and Gavin?
Yes
Very quickly i appreciate the tone of the video. And while there was a jab at baptists (i'm not a baptist) in the beginning it was at least a calm response on your part. I have issues with a few things you said early on but I'm not going to run down those trails. I'd say the bottom line to any discussion on the faith, theology, church hierarchy or structure is determined by what your standard is. For myself its scripture and early church fathers, church history or a priori arguments don't take precedence, the bible does. If scripture is not your highest and final authority then sure, start with an a priori argument and fill in the blanks. Or start with church fathers or a council and go backwards.
Either way youre putting the cart before the horse. The faith was (past tense) once for all delivered to the saints. That was in the first century. If there is no papacy in the n.t., and theres not, then building a case through logic or philosophy or church history doesn't really matter. If i find someone that rejects there is a position of deacon or elder or overseer in the n.t. it takes me seconds to pull up the verse where those positions are explicitly discussed. If the papacy was a legitimate office it would right along side the other offices in the pastorals. Its not. Nor is it anywhere else in the n.t.
Hope this didn't come across as hostile, its not meant to be. Thanks
Hi! Thanks for your comment.
There are many ways to go about discussing this subject matter. The one avenue I like to go is that the New Testament itself points to the reality of an enduring "Church" that would take the mission that Christ began after his temptation in the desert and bring it to "all nations". Therefore, the New Testament has a string attached to the Church that proceeded the Apostolic era and continues onward until the end of time. If Protestantism never existed during these times, then we know Protestantism is a novum, something that the Church of the centuries would have immediately known was false thereby. On the other hand, if the historical sources clearly show the institution of the Papacy, then the Papacy now has New Testament confirmation just by virtue of the fact that it makes a persuasive case of being the Church that is attached via string to the New Testament.
That would be one simple way to begin the conversation, and we can take it from there.
@Classical Christian Thought, your point about Cyprian’s challenging Pope Stephen is solid. There are two different approaches to the evidence. Is it displaying a disobedient/resistant bishop (Cyprian) or a novel power grab (Stephen)? I cannot think of any corporate rebuking/correcting of the bishop of Rome for his power except maybe Constantinople IV 879, which I think you are addressing this weekend. Do you know if any Pope sent the pallium to Eastern churches prior to Lateran IV? I know Pope Gregory the Great sent it to those in Italy and Britain, but they are Western.
Hi Luke,
Yes, I agree on Cyprian/Stephen. On can find resistance to the Papacy even among those who held to the Papacy, all throughout the 2nd millennium up to the present time. The precise limitations of Papal power were always, to some degree, in question. We are still discussing the matter in 2022.
On the Pallium - I've sent the question to an academic friend. I will see if he can help us.
God bless.
@@Erick_Ybarra I appreciate you passing on that question. I have been talking to Michael Lofton for around five years; when I met him, he was Orthodox, and I was headed that direction. It is a tremendous journey. I really need your prayers as my family and I are planning on converting to the RCC as Christ’s true Body at Pentecost. Thanks.
@@lhinton281 Wow. That is immense. I will certainly remember you. On the pallium - I *do* know that this was a development and it would have been rather impractical as a normal custom for the far east. Nevertheless, I think there were items in lieu of the pall, such a letters of commendation. But I don't ever want to rest on something I've not dug deep into, so I'll have to verify .
@@Erick_Ybarra I am working through Bede’s history. He has some awesome stories of Gospel preaching, miracles, etc. St Germanus was preaching in the fields. Also, Bede records the missional zeal of Pope St Gregory the Great and others, and the writer in a few places announces the supreme role of the Pope. The pallium appears in the narrative due to new bishoprics in Britain. Anyway, when is your book available?
North Africa was Latin and under Rome's jurisdiction. With regard to the public outcry against the accretion of the papacy, we see it clearly in the 5th Ecumenical Council with Vigilius. We also see it in the lack of universal reception of the first Latteran Council.
Hey CultofModernism!
Good to hear from you. Let me try and field some of your comments.
(1) North Africa was not part of the supra-Metropolia of the Roman diocese until centuries later, and so it would be far too early to speak of a regularized "jurisdiction" of North Africa under a "Western Patriarch". Such a concept would be far too anachronistic for St. Cyprian's time. Hence, the Synod of 257 felt they had a chance to resist.
(2) The 5th Council against Vigilius does show an attempt to announce the vacancy of the Apostolic See because of a "heresy" of its occupant. Recall, this kind of mentality still exists in the majority of Catholic canonists throughout the 2nd millennium, and it is a major consideration for current reforms. In other words, folks such as Popes Innocent III and Gregory VI all held that the occupant of the Apostolic See could be quasi-judged if he were to come against the faith. However, the 5th Council under Vigilius has some other elements which made its judgment improper especially in light of the Emperor taking the driver seat. The texts which seek to excommunicate Vigilius were scrubbed from the Acts of the Council before Vigilius left-back for Italy, and this is why we don't see appeals to the Vigilius event by those wanting to condemn Papal assertions until Protestants were mistaking the legitimacy of the Greek record of the Acts contra Vigilius.
(3) The Lateran Council (649) is more properly titled the Roman Synod of 649 because it had only Italian bishops with some incoming letters from the Northern and Southern West, as well as some Greek monastics (St. Maximus and his associates). This local council, nevertheless, was supremely binding, and this is why the letter of its president, Pope St. Martin, enforced its decrees on all. Pope St. Agatho, likewise, enforced its decrees in his famous dogmatic Epistle, solemnly accepted by the Council of Constantinople III (681).
@@Erick_Ybarra that's why I brought up the fact that the North African synod was Latin speaking. Though the jurisdictions were not explicitly defined at that point, it was known that the Bishop of Rome was the highest authority in the Latin speaking west. When jurisdictions were defined, therefore, it was only natural that North Africa fell under Rome's authority.
The point is that the Stephen-Cyprian exchange cannot be understood as an example of the Pope exerting his authority outside of his jurisdiction.
@@cultofmodernism8477
Thank you for the quick reply!
So I am having trouble understanding your conclusion. If North Africa being under "Roman jurisdiction" is a non-reality in the 3rd century, and is not even a working idea (for which reason I called it anachronism to say so), I'm not sure how your conclusion follows. Help me out, brother :D
@@cultofmodernism8477 Also, I'm not sure if it was recognized that Pope Stephen also put mandates on Eastern territories.
@@Erick_Ybarra Sure, my point is that using Stephen's intervention in North Africa as an example of Papal authority extended beyond/outside of its jurisdiction is anachronistic for two reasons: (i) first, because, as you mention, jurisdictions were not explicitly defined then; and (ii) informally, North Africa is a western, Latin synod and, even by the 3rd century, it was known that the bishop of Rome was the highest ecclesial authority in the west. This is why, by the time jurisdictions were formally defined, North Africa naturally went to Rome.
There are examples of Rome operating outside of its jurisdiction. I'm not denying that. It's just this isn't one of those examples. At the very least, it's not a good example. Your commentary on Lateran 649 really supports my argument: The Pope called a council, with Eastern representation (though minimal), to settle a dogmatic matter. That council was not universally binding (though it pretended to be so, according to commentary from Price) until received by an ecumenical council.