An Orthodox Priest and Catholic Apologist Talk about the Papacy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- In this video, Orthodox priest, Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, and Catholic Apologist, Erick Ybarra, discuss the papacy. However, this isn't your usual battle of proof texts. Instead, we dive deep into questions of ecclesiology which get to the root of the disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox. Throughout the course of the discussion, Fr. Laurent and Erick tackle questions like:
1. Did Catholics and Orthodox EVER agree on the papacy?
2. What does Roman primacy mean?
3. What can we learn from the Council of Serdica?
4. When does papal primacy turn into papal supremacy?
5. What's the nature of the Church?
Fr Laurent Cleenewerck is an Orthodox priest serving as rector of St Innocent Orthodox Church in Eureka, California, in the Orthodox Church in America diocese of the West. He is among other things a graduate of the St Sergius Institute in Paris and current teaches theology for the Ukrainian Catholic University and for Euclid University. He is the author of His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the editor of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament.
You can find Fr. Laurent's book here: amzn.to/3sFWBNK
Erick Ybarra is a revert to the Catholic faith from Protestantism and has spent over a decade studying the doctrinal nature of divisions that exist within Christendom particularly between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as Protestantism. He is the author of the recent book, Melchizedek and the Last Supper. He is a speaker that has appeared on various social media outlets but is known most especially for his contribution as a co-host of UA-cam’s Reason and Theology and his own channel, Classical Christian Thought. He is also a blogger at ErickYbarra.org.
You can find Erick's book at: amzn.to/3nYh6mL
You can find Erick online at: / @erick_ybarra
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: shop.gospelsimplicity.com
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 24 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
How I made the coffee in the video:
aeroprecipe.com/recipes/james...
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
01:06 - Did the East and West ever agree?
14:40 - What do we mean by Roman primacy?
01:03:00 - What makes a church a church?
01:20:40 - Where's the line between primacy and infallibility? - Розваги
![The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [Introduction]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mVSlhmjvDB0/mqdefault.jpg)
I really liked how civil this was. Wish there were more discussions like this between Catholics and Orthodox.
Very respectful and charitable discussion. I wish this would become the norm in conversations among Christians
amen
May it be so!
@@GospelSimplicity very mutually respectful & interesting discussion. Both covered a lot of ground. And I wanted to watch the whole thing through before commenting.
This discussion really had less to do with the papacy, and more to do with the primacy & supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Sure, primary & supremacy has much to do with the papacy (the latter being a much later development). But there is so much more to the papacy than this. The concept of the papacy is not just primacy & supremacy, but more specifically that when he speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair of Peter) on matters of doctrine & faith, the bishop of Rome is infallible. And if you reject this, you are anathematized (kind of a big deal). Erick touched on this during the discussion, but since this was a discussion on whether or not the papacy (which includes papal infallibility) was something that was embraced by the East, I would have thought this would have been a major talking point. In fact, this wasn't even something the West embraced early on. And since these things (primacy, supremacy, & infallibility) were all "developed" much later (at separate points in time), this demonstrates these attributes imposed on the bishop of Rome later on did not apply to the bishop of Rome early on.
Jerome conceded even the order of "succession" of the bishops of Rome was not agreed to by the Latin Fathers. There are at least 5 different orders of succession in the early church. St. Cyprian was brought up, who used the term "bishop of bishops" as a pejorative for the bishop of Rome. And the term "Pontificus Maximus" was a term for the Roman Emperor & later adopted for the Roman Bishop, and not initially used as a compliment.
A survey done of the early church demonstrates Peter being the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 was actually a MINORITY view. Even Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, believed it applied to Christ, not Peter. They both mentioned Irenaeus & bishop ("Pope") Victor on the dating of Easter...and Irenaeus was right! "Pope" Victor was wrong, and this was a pretty big deal. Also, the fact that the bishop of Rome was in the central location of the Roman Empire helped to advance that particular bishopric. If it was central in Antioch, "that" bishopric would have eventually been the dominate one in Christendom...and the fact Peter was actually bishop there (not Rome) that would have been stressed to support its primacy & eventual supremacy.
One pushback on the Orthodox side though, since the Pope is in agreement with Ecumenical Councils, I would like to know from Fr. Cleenewerck why the East doesn't accept the 8th Ecumenical Council, since they were still in communion with the bishop of Rome, as the Great Schism wouldn't happen for another 2 centuries. This seems to be strong evidence of lack of agreement of papal authority in the first millennium between the East & West.
What I would LOVE to see is "a" Catholic & "a" Protestant discuss the papacy from BOTH a Biblical & historical perspective on your channel. In fact, I would volunteer to be on the Protestant side. Although I have not written a book on the topic like Erick has, I have given numerous presentations on the topic of the papacy.
Lastly, have you had the chance to read the rest of my book on the OT canon? This is very relevant to even this discussion, because if the bishop of Rome did indeed have primacy (and/or supremacy) when the late fourth century church councils were convened by the bishops of Rome (Damasus & Siricius), why was their pronouncement of the canon not binding to the churches in the East, who embraced a much smaller canon closer to the Protestant Bibles?
It sure would be *great* improvement, if at the very least *conciles* are re-created between East and West.
Not to declare the Pope as "top dog", but rather to harmonize matters of faith between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Just like back in the day, with genuine & sourced theological arguments.
And if our dear host is able to help in that effort, I suggest proposing sanctification. 😁 Saint Austin, that has a nice ring to it ! 😋
@@BornAgainRN Not to be rude but there has already been a orthodox protestant discussion and the protestant admitted that Calvinist beliefs are are part of a condemned heresy due to an ecumenical council.
Former RC here, EO catechumen (to be received soon). Sort of "double checking" that I'm making the right decision. Although I don't always agree with Ybarra, I wish there were more popular internet apologists like him. Catholics use this word too often sometimes...but I will say, Erick is the king of charity. Most charitable guy online in this sphere. We would all get so much further in our spiritual lives together if we loved one another in discussion like Erick does.
Although I'm pretty sure I'm going to follow through on this and become Eastern Orthodox, I will always remember Mr. Ybarra as a shining example of being diplomatic, stern yet polite, and loving in his speech. He never talks just to hear his own voice, and he is also an astounding active listener.
That is super kind of you. Thanks a bunch. May God richly bless you and your journey.
- Erick Ybarra
''former Protestant here'' don't lie dear brother
My dad was an Anglican priest who left that church with the acceptance of female priests in the mid 70s and the moves to accept homosexuality. He became an Orthodox priest instead of a Roman Catholic priest because he believed that Vatican II indicated the potential for the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women or bless homosexual marriages "within 50 years." It's interesting to me to look back and see that it wasn't the filioque, or infallibility, but the potential for liberalization that he saw in Vatican II.
That is interesting. What was it, particularly, within Vatican II that he thought would pave the way towards this? The Liturgical reforms, Lumen Gentium, or anything else?
Interesting since VII doesnot allow to break with sacred tradition, as stated in the opening statement. As for accepting homosexuality, to recognize ot exists and that these are our brethren, is not a attack of that Holy Tradition.
@@Midnight4K I think liturgical. There were local Catholic Churches having Beatles masses and stuff like that, plus the masses were done in 25 minutes and other stuff. And all of the protestant hymns that really replaced a long tradition of specific hymns. Also, the fasting rules became very minimalistic, kids were encouraged to pick 1 or 2 sins to confess. I'll ask my brother. My dad actually was instrumental in building up a Roman Catholic Church, School and Community as a teacher, he did adult ed for that parish and work for the diocese and he got fired by a pedophile priest who got the Bishop to rule that he was a defrocked Roman Catholic priest because he had turned down an offer to be ordained as a married western right Catholic Priest. He got blackballed from all of the schools in the diocese and we had to move. The priest and other relatives of him who have holy orders have been disciplined by the pope for inappropriate behavior. Sorry, this isn't a pedophilia in the Church rant. He taught at a Catholic University for 20 years after that in a different state.
@@mertonhirsch4734 no I get it, tumultuous history with some figures in the Catholic church. I can respond more when I'm on my computer since I'm at work (yes on a Saturday).
@@mertonhirsch4734 Catholic priests cannot have children nor can they be married.
Father Laurent is my confessor. A wonderful man, diligent priest, and faithful servant of God! ❤
Thanks for hosting this chat, Austin! May God bless your journey.
I’m
Orthodox but I have nothing but love for the Church of my heritage which is the Catholic Church. I hate the online polemics between apologists for both
Thank you for saying that. Truth be told, Orthodox I meet online are very rude to me and I haven't had many positive experiences. I try to remember that not everyone is like that. This message gives me hope, thank you.
based let us pursue unity brother
Thank God you're not like those guys.
❤
Unity in Jesus!
Humans divide and this is ridiculous. In my opinion we are dividing it. Jesus Christ is not.
Erick Ybarra, a very nice, gentle Cuban and a very knowledgeable Catholic apologist. A gift to the Church. Love to the Orthobros by the way ☺
I always appreciated Erick’s candid and respectful approach. Fr Laurent Cleenewerck was highly influential on me in my conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Very thankful for his great work on ecclesiology and in helping me understand the more ancient Petrine and Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Church. “There is only one bishop in the catholic Church.” ☦️
It sure would be *great* improvement, if at the very least *conciles* are re-created between East and West.
Real debates. Just like back in the day, with genuine & sourced theological arguments.
Welcome home ✊ When I was debating orthodoxy versus RC I knew the answer deeply when I knew denying the papacy was EXACTLY the same as denying Christ. There is no nuance.
(Despite what vat 2 says, which only adds to my decision because the papal definition changed)
I’ve heard all the nuance about this, but Holy Orthodoxy is the Church.
@@LadderOfDescentwell said ☦️
candid and respectful = lukewarm ?
@@ribbitcroakfair critique, but I doubt that’s the case here. He had enough zeal and concern about this topic to write a 1000+ page book on papal heterodoxy.
The Orthodox priest was so knowledgeable and respectful 😍
His parish is just about 4 hrs drive from me
Yep!
Didn't he say he had French ancestry ?
Not that American kids aren't taugh anything at school, mind you... 😘
@@goofygrandlouis6296 i need a translator for your gibberish. You should also learn how to spell 🤯😂🤡
As a devote Catholic from birth, I am 79 years old, I needed at some point in my life to look deeper into the faiith, so in my search I have deepened my love for the Almighty God by learning about the other Universal Churches...The Syriac Church and it's Saints sent a burning desire in my heart and soul that has deepened my love of My God, My Father, My Savior. I since had to rethink things. I believe in Peter the first Bishop of Rome, with all the love and respect for this belief....But something tugged at me. Every human being is stained with the weakness of sin...If there is total power, there is total corruption which leads to the total destruction of the Church...if a local Bishop is corrupt, then we have "death" in a local area, not the destruction of the total Faith, but the birth of spiritual warriors to defend the faith....Total control of any spiritual or earthly structure by mortal humans is an opening for the forces against God to corrupt...sorry to say that this is true throughout Church history but we need the other 2 Catholic branches to keep this from happening...ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY....THE ROOTS ARE SIMPLE IN THE DESERT FATHERS AND ALL THOSE THAT DID NOT STRAY FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE FAITH, PURIFYING OUR HEARTS WITH PURE LOVE FOR OUR GOD, OUR FATHER AND SAVIOR
This is why God did not leave the bishops, especially the Bishop of Rome and his successors, without special help. This is why he prayed Peter’s faith would never fail. This is why he protects him from error, and this is why throughout history the Fathers spoke of the See of Rome as “unblemished forever”
I was just baptized into the Orthodox Church last Saturday. I considered Catholicism for a while but Orthodoxy just made more sense.
I’m looking forward to seeing it!
For me, it can only be either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Protestantism just doesn’t make sense to me. I'm sticking with Catholicism, but I look forward to the discussion. Hoping for unity one day.
I have a lot of hope given how much progress our Church hierarchies have made in the last century to bring our churches closer together (even tho the online trend is the polar opposite of that) that some day the divide will be overcome at last
@@jakajakos
Amen
what made more sense about it?
Catholicism makes more sense but fair enough
Erick Ybarra is so clear and factual and he speaks so humbly.
Im so honored to have been born into the Catholic Church.
Praise our Precious Lord ❤️🙏🔥🙏❤️
I really enjoyed Fr. Laurent last time you had him on. I think this will be a cordial and productive discussion.
Thank you for hosting these!
My pleasure!
I’ve always wondered what a conversation between Erik Ybarra and Father Stephen De Young would be like? 😅
Looking forward to it
Thanks for Hosting! Prayers 🙏🏼
Loved the discussion on the petrine and complete aspects of local churches, how that relates to the whole, etc. Ecclesiology is so beautiful. The talk about the local church as the "cell" within the body. There seems to be such depths to plumb when we think about the Church in these aspects: the body of Christ, the Petrine aspect, the Mariological aspect, the family of God, the temple of God, and on and on...
It is a good analogy, but it neglects the fact that bodies also have a central nervous system that regulates certain functions within the body. In the full analogy, Rome would occupy the role of the brain.
Very informative and formative conversation, in love for Christ an his Only Church. Let's become one in Jesus Christ. We need more of this. Congratulations.
I can't wait! I'll be getting my popcorn ready
Thank you for hosting this very important discussion. I see a lot of criticism from the Orthodox side toward Catholicism online, much more than I see criticism directed in the other direction, but I love my Eastern bros and sisters with a fraternal love that will not be quenched even by rebuff.
Internet people are more generally like that though.
Maybe because Catholics want us to unite with them by abandoning Holy Orthodoxy (the Right Faith, the unchanged church) and join them in becoming Catholics.
When are Catholics going to realise that their church is in the wrong, that they changed their dogma time and time again. We Orthodox never changed our dogma.
We never changed the words of the Creed.
@@voievod9260 If your talking about the Filioque, the issue was not the latin church adding that in it was the pope forcing the Filioque in a context and language in which it doesn't work (Filioque in latin and in greek καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) since in the greek it implies a double spiration which is not endorsed or taught by either church. the Latin Church has maintained the hermeneutic of continuity but has changed it's formulation of it's doctrine with the advent of new information. the theology and philosophy in the west has lead to the necessity of clearly defined doctrine whereas in the east there is not really a way or (in the summation of the eastern church) a need for more doctrinal clarity on many matters. In my eyes this has lead to problems in both the west and the east where the west tends to dogmatically define that which was already doctrinally taught which can seem as additions or innovations but in reality are only new formulations of established doctrines. Whereas the east has a difficult and almost impossible job of dealing with new issues a famous example of this is the baptism/ re-baptism scandal in the east. There are many parishes and sees in the east who are in communion with each other who have very different views on the initiatory sacrament and there does not seem to be the ability for the east to actually have recourse for this issue.
The fact you see the criticism flow one way and not the other is probably the algorithm or your personal bias.
Love the choice of the individuals for this discussion, both of whom wrote excellent books on this topic and both of whom are very respectful and civil in their demeanor showing the love of Christ to one another even when in disagreement. Would love to see more of both of them having these excellent dialogues together.
I'm a Catholic, and I want to say that I love and respect very much my Orthodox brethren. I encourage my side to pray and fast for their salvation, conversion, protection, guidance and many spiritual and temporal blessings in their lives. That's what love is about, willing the good of the other! P.S. not only for them, but for all men who are either linked to us by baptism or not, He loved all men, so must we. But it is well from time to time in prayer to also specify intentions for whom.
Good stuff, thoughtful.
Respectfully: There's no need for you to pray for the conversion of Orthodox Christians.
Pope John XXIII lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox at Vatican 2. He also declared that the Orthodox have valid sacraments via Apostolic Succession.
With that said, there is no need to convert us. If you are obedient to the Roman Catholic Church, then you have to accept that the Orthodox have valid sacraments via apostolic succession.
Im good I will be never go back to the Roman Catholic church. The papcy is a mess!
@@Flying_H3llfish7 If you know, how does the Roman church harmonize that with it's dogmatic assertion to be "subject to the Roman pontiff" in order to obtain salvation?
One thing I deeply agree with the Orthodox churches on is that we should still call Easter "Pascha" or at least "Pasch" in the English-speaking Latin West.
In any Latin based languages, eg French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese they still do... All Western Catholics... It's only in the Germanic type languages, English, German, Nordic languages, that Easter/Ostern type words are used. Not really a difference between Catholics and Orthodox at all.
@@catholicbeth2371 I know. That's why I specified "English-speaking!"
In Dutch we still call it "Pasen" too. And in the Nordics they say "Påsk" or "Påske". So really it's only German and English
Latin rite catholic…in Spanish it is pascua 😊
@@verenice2656 I specified English-speaking. I'm so glad that many of my friends who speak other languages preserve the passover diction in their native tongues. My native English doesn't, which I lament!
Also Austin-you are amazing. God has ordained you to this great ministry!
You are needed.
God wants unity!
You are working for Him here trying to accomplish this!
Didn’t Jesus say who is for us is not against us?
Like, when the disciples said that somebody else was healing, in the name of Jesus?
I think that applies here in actuality.
We humans are all wrong…
God bless you Austin.
You are so calm and fair!
A good example for me.
PS..Our goal is to unite ourselves with Jesus Christ.
If we could do it through any particular church, then I think He simply just wants that.
Thanks for the kind words!
I enjoyed listening to this discussion. I have a great hope and desire that somehow through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that full unity can be restored. We have been apart for way to long, many things have changed over the years. Both East and West have developed differently not just theologically but also economically and politically. History has a long memory, hopefully we can put those things of the past aside. Those on both sides who keep casting negative aspersions and accusations ought to be ashamed of themselves. We need to work in the vineyard peacefully, hand in hand for our mutual benefit, and to once again bring civility, justice, and societal peace to humanity. My hope is that discussions like this can manage to filter down to the parish level, and bring opportunity for the laity from both east and west to have a genuine opportunity to get acquainted with each other, to share how we express and live the same faith. This will enrich both and bring a long lasting unity to the Church.
The pope would have to renounce supremacy, the latin church quite a lot of its doctrine (filioque, original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibity, etc) before east and west could reunite. Do you really see that happening?
@@ericlammerman2777 no the west does not have to renounce those doctrines, in reality all but Papal primacy have been resolved, through the theological dialog that has been going on for 60 plus years those issues are no longer issues, although there are many Orthodox who continue to push these divisions. Metropolitan Kalistos Ware stated that after deeper investigation and understanding he found the filioque to no longer be an impediment to full communion. East and west culture developed differently, western theology kept asking questions and seeking deeper meaning and answers. The eastern mind has not sought or asked the same questions or sought the same answers. In this way western theology is more highly developed. We express the same truth differently. While there are some small disagreement on things that have no bearing on one's salvation and are not worth haggling over. Papal supremacy has changed from Vat I to Vat II, and as patriarch of the west things in the west will continue as they are. The theological dialog is working on how Papal primacy was exercised and understood in the first 1000 years of the Church. Once the church agrees on Papal authority all theological obstacles will have been removed .
@@ericlammerman2777 I also think you are making it bigger than it has to be. The biggest problems are the Filloque, what creed are we saying in the Liturgy and the questions surrounding papal authority. The other things you named are either not relevant like original sin, or don’t play a very large role like purgatory, a doctrine nobody really is highly infested in.
The biggest problem is the Saints practically speaking. Who is and isn’t? And is either side willing to give up Saints that the so loved over hundreds of years?
Great priest, he was very knowledgable and respectful.. God bless him! (From an Orthodox) ;)
The internet is fantastic because it can enable discussions like this. Great talk between Father and Erick here.
Unfortunately the internet also enables inflammatory polemical attitudes as well. Best to sift away the filth and look toward the good. Looking forward to Unity in the foreseeable future; 2033 or 2054? Either way, East and West are closer than they have been in 600 years, praise God.
Mr. Ybarra is a fellow parishioner of mine!
What a small world!
I love Fr. Lawrence's definition of the Church as "the place where we can be assured that the the Lord is present," i.e., Bishop, Presbyter, Eucharist, laity, Gospel, Apostolicity, holiness, catholicity. And that certain local assemblies can become so defective that we cannot be assured any longer of a valid Eucharist. But that both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches are truly the Church.
Oh cool! I actually met Fr. Laurent and his sons at St. Herman's monastery in Platina a year ago. A very nice and knowledgeable priest.
Lovely discussion!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone discerning can honestly believe that the Catholic claims are more persuasive than the Orthodox. For me, I have issues with 'on the ground' Orthodoxy, but when it comes to history and theology, there is zero doubt in my mind that the Orthodox claims are True.
Read your bible
That's just your opinion
Austin - Question: Have you done a video on the sacraments of the Catholic church? Like a "deep dive" into what the 7 sacraments mean. If you have not, I wish you would.
I have not, but that would be fun!
We really need for our Churches to get their act together and make this a reality. Amen.
As much as this being a contentious matter, I only wish Christians from the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church (and even the Protestants) be more civil towards each other. We should see what unites us instead. The wolves are at the doors of whatever tradition we profess and it really frustrates me to see us tearing each other down instead of coming to together and be better witnesses for Christ to the world.
I agree.
As Bishop Sheen once said
" We may not meet in the same pew, but we can pray for unity in the Spirit!"
Imagine if Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox were to stand Together as witnesses of Christ...
What a powerful movement it would be!
We can all be civil but there’s a line because we are all heretics to each other so it is what it is
Well said !!
@@zachlehkyi9951heretics, or just in a milder type of error?
I agree, but with the qualification that usually such arguments come from a place of trying to build eachother up, by convincing the other of the error of their ways and restoring them to the full truth of the faith. When it's done civily and with Christian love, as well modeled in this debate, it's a net positive.
Excellent discussion! I paused twice: once to order Aiden Nichols' book that Erick mentioned, once to order Fr. Laurent's book. In this time of crisis in Catholicism, focused on the papacy, this question has a very real (and for me, personal) significance.
Glad you enjoyed it! I hope you find the books fruitful
Fr.Laurent's book is easily the best book on the subject I've ever read. You're in for a treat
You're right. It's excellent. I'm well into it now and looking forward to the rest!@@hesoswag1697
You mean you dont like "woke Pope" Francis ? 😁
At this rate, he's going to be woker than an American campus student ! 😅
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Nobody said anything about Pope Francis, with respect.
Ir is very true as father Lawrence said we are all defective and one important thing that we kept as orthodox christian keep the experience authentic is the ELEOS the MERCY and thus we do know that God will find away to save people salvation is only by Grace.. not just faith or just works or both... God's Grace is Most importance.
I really hope Fr. Laurent references the Alexandrian document that was published on June 7th, 2023, and is endorsed by Pope Francis and hosted on the Vatican website. That document is devasting to the Roman Catholic position admitting most of the ecclesiological and historical points Orthodox have been making for the past thousand years, that the papacy has evolved over time from a synodal structured Church to a much more juridical, monarchical Church, while the Orthodox have maintained the original synodal structure in line with Apostolic Canon 34.
Synodal structure lacking doesn't invalidate the papacy. Session 3 of Ephesus (431), the Formula of Hormisdas, Pope Agatho's letter at Constantinople 3 (681), and Session 2 of Nicea 2 all affirm a Universal primacy of the Pope 🤷🏾♂️
I'm currently a protestant but we need to look at these issues more accurately. Even Fr. Laurent says what i just said in other places
@UltraX34 A protestant reading the church fathers and councils like a catholic does. Not a surprise 😄
@@UltraX34 it does no such thing.
@@primuspilushbI'd recommend reading all of those
I really enjoy Austin’s approach to have an open dialogue. . This comment section can be very hateful at times where everyone is calling everyone a heritic and saying very nasty stuff. Very shameful.
someoane is heretic; that is not hate is just the ugly truth
That’s true and that can be addressed. But there is no need for personal attacks on peoples charicror.
Glad you enjoy the approach!
This is a great discussion. I wanted to point out that during the segment regarding locality. I think we need to have unity and with unity there is an authority or head. That head is the Bishop of Rome. If one thing is clear and emphasized by the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers is we stay united. When I hear the “local” theory I believe we run the risk of fragmenting our faith. After all bc of that local theory in part, the Church battled heresy for centuries in one form or another. I would agree with the Apostolic setup of the 5 main Bishophrics with Roman primacy. Christ established these authorities with Peter and in his binding and loosing, dictates the ways of the Church. This authority with Peter didn’t die with Peter for Christ knew His Church would not die with Peter but others would through succession, continue to this day. Therefore Christendom should follow in one unity without protest and separation.
Austin, I wonder if you've ever had requests for an interview with Dr. Timothy Patitsas, Dean of Hellenic College and professor at Holy Cross in Boston, MA.
He wrote an incredible work called "Ethics of Beauty" that would be of inestimable value to you and the GS audience. I'd spend time outlining the content and its value but I wouldn't do it justice. Perhaps you can view a couple interviews he has done on the book. It proposes a "beauty first" way of seeing that helps us on our journey toward the goodness and truth of God. And he does this by addressing real issues and challenges in our world ranging from combat trauma to gender and even city planning. Would love to see you two beautiful folks interact!
Thanks for putting this back on my radar! I've considered it in the past, but, since I read my guests' books prior to interviewing them, I've put it off because of the length. Hopefully I can revisit it soon
I second this request! The Ethics of Beauty is beyond worth reading (even though it's long), or at least looking into the author. It had a huge impact on me personally.
Sounds similar to Bishop Barron’s emphasis on Beauty as well
Erik Ybarra is so knowledgeable and father was so civil and loving.
How about a discussion about the potential for unity between the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox church, and the core difference(s)?
Its my understanding pretty much everything has been signed and agreed upon. Just no counsel to declare it official so still no inter communion.
Thanks!
The disagreement seems to distill down to whether the perogatives of the See of Peter constitutes an essential aspect of the Church or a purely functional one. The quality, if essential, seems to be the charism of Unity exercising itself both in governance and teaching. While Ericks suggestions of subsidiarity at the end would definitely get us to unity on the aspect of governance, the orthodox would still need to reach a consensus with Rome regarding the teaching office, because of the doctrine of infallibility.
And lest I sound horrible, I will apologize , but it is annoying to see this division.
I think this is a wonderful discussion in reality and I enjoy this channel quite a bit.
I believe there’s a way to bring us together at the top and unfortunately that’s not happening.
So we just keep praying I guess. A lot of talk and no action.
God bless both of these men and bless all of you and this channel for sure.
🙏✝️
The deeper I dig into the history of the Church, the more annoying this division is to see. This is why I am becoming Melkite.
"We do not need to go here into all details of this ecclesiology [of a universal Church]. The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of a universal Church] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e., the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but also necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head because Christ is her invisible head is theological nonsense. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local church, i.e., the bishop. Yet it is the basic assumption of a "catholic" ecclesiology that the visible structure of the Church manifests and communicates its invisible nature. The invisible Christ is made present through the visible unity of the bishop and the people: the Head and the Body. To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestant divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven. We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church universal as the sum of all its component parts (i.e., local churches), then the one, supreme, and universal power as well as its bearer becomes a self-evident necessity, because this unique visible organism must have a unique visible head. Thus the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical. Within a universal ecclesiology, primacy is of necessity power and, by the same necessity, a divinely instituted power; we have all this in a consistent form in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church."
+ Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (c. 1921-1983), The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, 151)
This quote revolves 100% on what is meant by the term "Primacy". Here, it's use assumes a wild and fantastical jump into Global Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility without any explanation other than "Single Church = Single Supreme Leader".
Perhaps this is exactly why the quote begins with stating "...we need not look into the details..."
I'd suggest the works of St. Justin Popovic for the Orthodox perspective, especially his short work "Papism as the oldest Protestanism" which is easily found online.
An excerpt, below:
"Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power."
@@George-ur8ow Those words by Popovic are nonsense, from the very beginning. He speaks like a true Protestant.
Well said. Even in the Old Testament the 12 tribes held their unity through Moses that eventually arrived at the kingship of David holding the unity of the 12 tribes of Israel. Even in the present day this pattern and symbol of unity in a country lies in its leader being the president or the prime minister. It will really be hard for a 12 see with equal status to have a working unity to resolve disputes without someone visible at the top to make a decision even so to organize a consensus without having an agreed constitution of bylaws. This caricature of a supreme pontiff weilding unlimited powers are but a poor misrepresentation of the Catholic ecclesiology. The local bishops are very autonomous in their respective diocese but at the same time very much in communion with Rome as One body of Christ celebrating one universal mass rite (Novus Ordo) with One liturgical readings worldwide and One Cathechism. Sadly we take all the criticisms and vitriol almost from all sides and from all religions and even from within couple that with controversies magnified by biased reporting a mere human institution would simply crumble to pieces. Surprisingly the Catholic Church is still standing witnessing to the Lord's promise that the gates of Hades will never triumph on His Church He build upon Kepha.
@@djo-dji6018Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom....authority and office...He said feed my sheep...also this mirrors the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom...King David like Jesus our King had a prime minister ...like Pope Peter....you cannot cut the Head from the Body of Christ.
@@George-ur8ow
"This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”
If the church age is a kingdom and the King is absent wouldn’t the King leave a royal vizier in charge during His absence? Who would that be?
1. The King is not absent. 2. The Holy Spirit is explicitly who Christ sends upon His ascension.
The difference really starts to come out just before 30 minute mark.
One of the things I struggle with over this topic, as a Catholic no less, is how can one say "Oh this is how the East understood Papal primacy" when quite literally 4/5 See left after 1054. It seems quite clear the East did not view it the same as the West by any stretch.
4/5 left and God reduced their size to not even half of the Roman jurisdiction. That's pretty clear evidence for who God favored.
I understand Fr's emphasis on the local Church and he is absolutely correct. I dont think that contradicts though that you need a mechanism by which we are bound together on a Universal level as well. I think this is where the EO have trouble evidenced by their issue regarding Russia and Constantinople. Also, the issue with rebaptism and contraception. To me those are big issues; on the level of mortal sin.
Before the Council of Jerusalem Dr. Taylor presents evidence that Peter was in Rome. After the Council he went to Antioch. Later he returned to Rome.
Like your haircut!!
Most of all, I feel that, despite being Orthodox, this was a very good conversation. Both sides have a lot to work on before real union is even theoretically possible. To clarify, I'm on the Orthodox page theologically, but our Earthly Church structure is clearly pretty shaky. Still think though, that our structure is more resilient to Heresy and healthier for that, being decentralized and thus harder to corrupt by corrupting just one person. Cough cough.
All the respect to my RC friends. And I do like Ybarra, I think he's a good guy.
However, my biggest, "gripe," with online apologists for Roman Catholicism is they act like Orthodoxy is just some rag tag loosely connected band of essentially like protestants who have no real unity. This is disengenous. The Roman Catholic church isn't exactly united today, especially when you look past the façade of the supposed unity the Patriarch of Rome brings.
Another problem I notice is that almost every single internet apologist attends an eastern rite church. None of them attend a Novus Ordo. I find that a bit off no?
Anyways, best if luck to both the Roman and Orthodox representatives here. I know it will be a respectful dialogue.
1. If I recall correctly, the Holy See has actually officially stopped using the title _Patriarch of Rome._
2. Internet Catholic apologists attend either Eastern Rite parishes, as you’ve noticed, or TLM parishes (which is still to your point of educated and ostensibly devout Catholics avoiding the Novus Ordo, which is… problematic).
I think Ybarra attends an Ordinariate parish (Latin Rite). What is the problem with some catholic apologists attending an eastern rite parish?
I don't understand the supposed problem regarding their attending Latin Rite churches.
Francis said no more Latin Rite services.
@@mohaubereng9315It’s not that it’s “bad” to attend a TLM or Eastern Rite church; it’s more so that these parishes make up 1-2% of the global Catholic population, but the percentage of Catholic apologists (who ostensibly are more educated on Catholic faith and praxis than the average parishioner) who affiliate themselves as part of this extreme minority seems to be, what, 80-90%, maybe? Why the extreme disparity? Does this not suggest, at the very least, that these (typically) highly knowledgeable Catholics realize some sort of deficiency in what was proclaimed authoritatively by the Second Vatican Council to be the _normative_ practice and tradition of liturgy and worship-which, aside from themselves and their tiny little club, virtually every other Catholic on earth participates in? And if so, what do we do with the axiom _lex orandi, lex credendi?_ Is there not an implicit admission that the Roman Church has gone astray in some way?
I always think of our Lord’s Prayer to the Father that “they be one as You and I are one”. My thought is that this unity must have been reality in its speaking (Same as when our Lord says let there be light - and there is light). Also we must come to grips with the fact that our Lord desires unity - so in as much as we are not “one” - we are not living His will.
Seems the Orthodox see as the principal of unity - the Eucharist - and the sacraments as administered by bishops/ priests who have the character of Apostolic succession. The Catholic position seems to incorporate the view of the Orthodox but also incorporates unity with the SEE of Peter as a necessary component for maintaining that unity. I don’t know if they brought up the times when the eastern churches petitioned Rome to answer Specific problems but historically this happened so historically Rome was viewed as having some type of jurisdiction over the other Sees.
In that sense I agree with the Catholic position but I also agree that Rome should not mini micro manage the local issues that arise in the East. Doesn’t seem that the Papal Authority was ever practiced that way - in the first millennium.
The eastern sees also petitioned other eastern patriarchate and bishops and nobody claimed they had universal jurisdiction because they were appealed to.
This prayer was said to the Church herself. Not to those in schism from the Church. Those outside the visible community of Christians, the Church of Christ, aren’t branches
Unitatea se poate face doar în adevăr. Unirea cu erezia înseamnă căderea în erezie și renunțarea la adevăr, iar ăsta este un păcat capital față de Dumnezeu , care este Adevărul. Cine vrea unitate, să renunțe la erezii și va fi primit înapoi în Biserica Lui Hristos cu brațele deschise. Cu dogma nu e de glumit!!!
This "every bishop is Peter" needs qualification. We can't just believe it literally. For if we do, then are the apostles not bishops?
So, there has to be one sense that every Bishop is Peter and another sense that not every bishop is Peter where both can be true (not a contradiction because we speak of different sense of bishop being Peter).
Yeah you hit the nail on the head
Or we admit of true contradictions, like J.C. Beall does in "The Contradictory Christ." A larger problem is that we want to subject theological and ecclesiological truths to Aristotelian logic when it, in fact, cannot be so subjected. This is a particularly Roman Catholic approach and NOT an Eastern way of thinking. There are true contradictions which do not explode the entire system. So, no, I don't grant your premise: That there has to be a sense that not every bishop is Peter. That only holds if you bind theology (which isn't epistemological metaphysics but psychotherapeutics) to Reason. Theology is not to be so bound.
@@EricBryant That one can be A in one respect and not A in other respect is just common sense, neither a Roman Catholic approach nor eastern Orthodox approach.
That there has to be a sense that not every bishop is Peter is provable by:
- The apostles were bishops. Were they, including Peter, all Peter?
- Even Orthodox would agree that it's the see of Rome which is the see of Peter as stated in ecumenical councils and fathers.
I loved this discussion. It was very civil and will definitely be a source I will look back to when considering the subject matter. Something Fr. lawrence said does raise a question in my mind. He said something to the effect of "The Church needs to readopt the model that posits that all Bishops are Peters in their own right, then the presbyters are the other apostles, then the deacons, and lay-folk." If I'm not mistaken, this model is reliant on the idea that Peter was given a primacy that is beyond honorable, but authoritative. If this is the case, why would this model not extend to the Bishop of Rome and his relationship to other Bishops on a universal level as it does to Bishops within their local diocese. Especially when one of the key points I've heard made against the Papacy is that the charter by Christ to Peter in Matthew's Gospel does not carry a principle authority over the other apostles.
Eucharistic ecclesiology in short. Rather than me try to explain everything, it’s really better to just read Fr Laurent’s book His Broken Body. I’m only a third done with it but it’s very interesting and avoids much of the polemics around this. Catholics give positive reviews as well as orthodox. I don’t know of any other single book on the papacy that can say that.
I think Peter was given an authority but what does that mean? Modern people also downplay primacy of honor. But in an honor-based society, that is hugely important.
@@bobjenkins3rd Title of that book is problematic in itself. If we talk about "broken body" in a way of separation, we imply that there are multiple parts of the body. And that is very base of the pan-heresy of ecumenism. For, Orthodox traditional ecclesiology is on that Church is ONE and thus can not be comprised of multiple bodies. If we look at the patristics we would never find them speaking about the fallouts from the Church as about "pieces of the body" in any sense of its meaning. If we, on the contrary, speak about the "broken body" in a way of one body but blemished, that is even worse presupposition. I haven't read the book... just observing the title and I do not like it.
@@johnnyd2383 I don’t recall any exposition in the book talking about a “broken body” actually through the first 3/4 where I’m at now. It’s kindle and a pain to flip through so perhaps I’m wrong. It’s definitely not directly making a case for either of the scenarios you mentioned. I think he’s mainly referring to a broken communion in the context of Catholics and Orthodox. The book has an ecumenical tone, but as I read it, he’s very politely saying Catholics must become orthodox. Lots of interesting bits throughout though and concise.
If Orthodox is correct. Does that mean Jesus set up an equal (12) number of apostles of equal authority, as a voting plurality authority to decide where the true church goes? If so, how does that work in its succession of bishops?
The idea of _primus inter pares_ was discussed throughout the entire discussion and still managed to go over your head…
@@nuzzi6620 it should be a short answer. Show me the time stamp this is answered or answer yourself
@@CPATuttle Nope. He ONLY gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
@@honeysimon838where are you getting this from? That he “only gave Peter the keys”?
Yes.
Your maturity astounds me 90 seconds in
Hopefully astounding in a good way!
@@GospelSimplicity but of course!
No way!! Fr. Lawrence!!! Fr bless!!
Amen, I commend Erick for what he said at the end that if there is ever hope of communion between East and West, that the pope needs to be a patriarch among bishops and cannot micromanage every level of the church. I don’t think we are seeing that from Rome today and it is one of my biggest struggles in accepting the See of Rome as primal. Not just the micromanaging but the absurd decrees we see in the news today that affect every Roman Catholic parish are part of why I can’t see it as central. I will remind everyone that Francis has ceased all missionary work to Jews which casts a very strange light on the missionary works of Paul, Peter, and even Christ himself.
“And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell” Mark 9:47
Shouldn't we be properly using the term "Petrine primacy" rather than "Roman primacy"?
Rome is where Peter is and Our Lord Himself chose Rome.
if supremacy is of the nature of Peter's ministry, why did he not preside over the Apostolic Council (Acts 15), which is effectively the first ecumenical convocation.
How about you start by read a book on the Papacy by Steve Ray, Joe heschmeyer etc².
@@calson814 no need. the bitter tone of your response vindicates my question.
Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to loose and bind
@@CPATuttlehow are you coming to the conclusion that Peter “Alone” received the keys?
Have you read the entire book of Matthew?
Matthew 18:18
18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
(context: See Matthew 18:1. This was addressed to all the disciples)
If this is the fulfillment of the promise in Matthew 16, then yes, Peter now is able to bind and loose; along with the rest of the disciples. Jesus did, in fact, tell Peter He would give him the keys….which is completely consistent with Matthew 18 of all of them receiving the power to bind and loose. Peter is a part of the whole (another example of Tota Scripture giving clarity)
@@CPATuttleyou mean the same prerogative he gave the 12 in John 20?
Perhaps, the best "referee" in troubled times is the original apostolic deposit and the guidance and work of the Spirit.
Yes indeed
Impossible question... (might as well ask, "which city makes pizza CORRECTLY?")... I don't expect this video to answer the question in an hour and a half.
Also, the teaching of Christ and the apostles about the locus of Christian unity doesn't seem to be "Peter" or the Pope.
It looks like there is some effort from both sides to reconcile the differences between the two equally valid and opposing views. From the point of view of Orthodoxy, it appears they are concerned with further schisms in their own organisations and are potentially looking to Rome to help with "universality". This is the purpose of Rome. If the various branches of the Orthodox Church were to recognise the primacy of Rome in resolving their disagreements, whilst still maintaining their usually level of independence in all other matters, this would seem to be a compromise which allows for union and independence at the same time. However, given that the Orthodox Church is already in a further schism on smaller matters to do with baptism and such, it is hardly likely that they would now agree on this much more lofty and historically contentious problem and Rome would have to offer such a compromise in the first place, which (as far as I know) they haven't done.
They are not in schism.
@@millier.206 That's not what I've heard, but once you start schisming then your only option is to schism further. See the Protestant Reformation, as an example.
There is no schism in Orthodoxy regarding baptism.
I really enjoyed this conversation. As an Orthodox person, I really enjoyed hearing the Catholic perspective. Unfortunately there was one point he (the Catholic speaker) totally lost me on. He calls unity under the Petrine throne the glue within the church, which is the one thing (or one major thing) that keeps non catholic denominations from uniting with one another. However, that "glue" seems to be only a bandaid when there are such massive differences in theology between Protestantism and an apostolic church (Orthodoxy). Is it true unity when you're only united in name (you obey the Pope/a central authority)but not in theology? Even within catholicism we see plenty of lukewarm catholics, catholic churches that are pro abortion and LGBT affirming, but can we truly say that they're ACTUALLY united with the see of Rome when they reject its teachings except Papal supremacy? I think there's a reason why a lot of Catholics go as far as to call some German churches schismatic
Material schism is not the same as formal schism. Human nature will always divide to a certain extent but the structure itself of the papacy unites by far much more than any other method.
Dont let apologists confuse you. They dont speak for the church only share prospectives. The latin fathers post schism are not the the fathers nor saints of the east, thankfully.
@@orthodoxbasics one what?
@@orthodoxbasics He said post-schism. St. Leo died in 440.
@@slowboywhiteboardv4 My bad. Off course we don't acknowledge any Latin "saints" after the schism with the West
33:22 Fr. Cleenewerck must be referring to Unam Sanctam.
Probably. But I’m confident to say there isn’t an actual change in the ecclesiological argument between “Unam Sanctam” and the Second Vatican Council (Ecumenical), just as some of the Eastern Orthodox prelates are watering down the importance of the dogma of “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus” in their communion. In both ‘Unam Sanctam’ and CVII, it is absolutely sure and doctrinally clear that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, let me say. The formulation of the dogma is different both in focus/ wording or in methodology but the theological content is identical. What could cause Fr Cleenewerck any aversion here? According to the Catholic Church, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t mean (and it has never meant) that every individual outside of the formal/ full membership in the Catholic Church is necessarily damned nevertheless. What damns someone in the eyes of an All-Benevolent God - who is also the Lord of Justice - is culpability in mortal sinning. That can only mean that non-Catholics (and in some cases even formal Catholics can be accountable for those) are responsible either for their own deliberate acts schism and/or heresy, either for their culpable/ vincible ignorance, whenever they put deliberate barriers to coming to the full knowledge of Truth. Well, and that’s the specific wording of “Lumen Gentium”, n. 14.
In “Unam Sanctam” (1302), Pope Boniface VIII was in the midst of a crucial dispute of power with Philip IV, the King of France (known for his plot against the Knights Templar). The embryos of the heresy of Gallicanism were actually drawn in this Medieval period (v. Leighton, C. D. A. (1994), "The Meaning of Gallicanism", Catholicism in a Protestant Kingdom, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), albeit it would be a phenomenon of the full-blown Modern State and epoch. In the facet of the crisis, the arguable headship of the National Church by the monarch (like the crisis in Anglicanism has shown) would mean to dilacerate the unity of the Church according to the pope, so the Roman bishop advised anyone of the spiritual ‘potestas’ of the Church over all souls, in the authority of Christ, and the obligation of all the kingdoms to also account for her temporal power in a sense that the spiritual sword is to be exercised by the Church, like the temporal/ material is to be be exercised on behalf of the Church. Those words are explicit in the document, by the way.
With that being said, it’s a proclamation concerning the unity of the Church. It is addressed to all those who consciously, deliberately refuse to be in it:
_“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide (…)_
_“ This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19: 23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster (…). Therefore, IF THE GREEKS OR OTHERS SHOULD SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT CONFIDED TO PETER AND TO HIS SUCCESSORS, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’_
_This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16: 19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2] (…). Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”._
Please notice that it speaks of what is necessary in God’s ordinary design of the Church and of the salvific history, despite not limiting the role of God’s mercy so as to disdain the extraordinary. It makes clear to speak - in an advisory manner - of the “Greeks” (=Eastern Orthodox schismatics) and all those alike who consciously tried to say they were not confided to the Roman authority of Peter (upon which the Church was built) and his successors. So it is not that Vatican II estranged from “Unam Sanctam”. It is sure that the component of culpability (the deliberate refusal) is otherwise intrinsic in the text of “Unam Sanctam”.
What surprises me is that no one is free in EO to dispute the affirmation that there is no salvation outside the church. The issue can be, just as in Catholicism, how to understand it all with dogmatic precision in the grand scheme and the correct application in the concrete cases. Yet so grave and dogmatic is Eastern Orthodoxy in relation to the way they understand “extra ecclesia nulla salus” that EO even considers the sacraments ministered outside of their communion simply” graceless” and devoid of the Holy Spirit (which is never the position of Catholicism: the Spirit blows wherever He wants) and, up to this day, almost resurrecting the heresy of Donatism, they dispute the necessity of rebaptism of those received in their churches.
This was a fascinating discussion and definitely got off the beaten path in the best of ways. I wanted to hear so much more about the implications of other Petrine Sees (Antioch and Alexandria) and that Peter and Paul co-founded the Church in Rome for the current Catholic concept of Petrine-Roman primacy.
While Irenaeus ascribes preeminent authority to the Church founded in Rome by "the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," leadership was entrusted to Linus by the "blessed apostles." (Against Heresies 3.3.2) So, that we are strictly speaking of Petrine succession in Rome is a little fuzzy early on.
Fast forward 400 years and Pope Gregory the Great, writing to both Patriarchs Eulogious of Alexandria (Book 7, Letter 40) and Anastasius of Antioch (Book 8, Letter 2), certainly has a more developed idea of the Chair of Peter, but describes how all three bishops together preside over the single See and Seat of Peter by divine arrangement.
Seems like this concept is still really in flux 600 years in, not in keeping with the current Roman understanding, and that according to one of the most venerable holders of that office. This all sounds so very different from what Rome now claims to be.
That can be quite a historical twist, my friend. Never the Antiochene or the Alexandrian bishop called themselves to have successional line in the episcopate in a sense “sub Petrus”. Even Peter being the founder of Antioch, he instituted St Evodius as bishop in 53AD when he left to Rome, where he held authority until he died (in 64 AD). So when St Peter died (in 64 AD), he was NOT holding two/three/four simultaneous episcopal offices. Only Rome can - and does - claim the Petrine prerogative in a sense of authority/ jurisdiction in line of succession from Peter. About the three “Petrine Sees”, it is a custom to honor Alexandria and Antioch (in that very order - which wouldn’t make sense if that was alleged premised in jurisdictional status since Antioch was the “first”) that historically arouse when the See of Constantinople started to grow in importance. And the reason for that reference was Canon 6 of Nicaea defining that Alexandria and Antioch would have what is conventionally called a jurisdictional primacy in the area of their provinces, _"since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also"._ Nicea (325) is the origin of this particular ecclesiastical tradition (with small “t”) and then to define the ‘taxis’ of the churches in the following order: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Notice that the concept of primacy squeezed out from it was identified with the three largest cities of the Roman Empire at the time and this meant that the Council of Nicea, as far as ecclesiastical organization goes, secured what was later called “patriarchal” status to Alexandria and Antioch, further above what a metropolitan status meant. However, it is untrue that Nicea attributed a patriarchal status to Rome - but actually used the ALREADY existing reality for the Roman Church as an example of what it reconcilably defined for Alexandria and Antioch (their patriarchal status) after that pattern, and in that order, at the level of the Roman Empire’s provinces. This ecclesiastical tradition of the three “Petrine Sees” is honorific in consideration to Alexandria and Antioch, yet it is not with Rome, which is referable to a jurisdictional role. We know the reference to the “three Petrine Sees” became more common and useful in writings about the status of Alexandria and Antioch concerning the growth of importance - many times at the expense of the equilibrium in the churches of the East - of the Imperial See of Constantinople. That’s exactly how St Gregory the Great used it: to put Constantinople to its due place, even understanding the naturalization of their inevitable growing of importance.
Pope St Damasus has made it clear that those three Sees, in homage to Nicea (325), are expressing the original ‘taxis’ of the Church as ordered and it is not to be ignored: Rome first, Alexandria second and Antioch third. Still, it is clear that the Roman primacy wasn’t given by ecclesiastical self-arrangement, let alone by the Roman/Byzantine Empire, but by Christ Jesus, God the Son Himself and the Eternal ‘Logos’, in the Gospel narratives. That’s what we see in the compilation of papal decrees known as “Decretum Gelasianum”, in the part concerning Pope St Damasus:
_"1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the Catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also thought it necessary to say what, although the _*_UNIVERSAL CATHOLIC CHURCH DIFFUSED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IS THE SINGLE BRIDE OF CHRIST, HOWEVER THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH IS GIVEN FIRST PLACE BY THE REST OF THE CHURCHES WITHOUT [THE NEED FOR] THE SYNODICAL DECISION, BUT FROM THE VOICE OF THE LORD OUR SAVIOR IN THE GOSPEL OBTAINED PRIMACY:_*_ 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; And to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in heaven and you shall release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'._
_2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed Apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world._
_3. Therefore first is the seat at the _*_ROMAN CHURCH of the Apostle Peter 'HAVING NO SPOT OR WRINKLE_*_ OR ANY OTHER [DEFECT]'._
_However the _*_SECOND place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple_*_ and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the Apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom. Indeed the _*_THIRD place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honorable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Rome_*_ and where the first name of the new race of the Christians was heard”._
(Decretum Gelasianum, III. 1-3)
So the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision in a plebiscite or a synod, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches, nor is subject to it in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” - mediatory participation is preferable).
In regards to Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology, that most probably mean (in your case) a lack of knowledge , my friend. Orthobros repeating it online won’t make their case the slightest better here, as far as St Gregory the Great goes. Just to help people find out more about Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology:
_”(...) I, unworthy, succeeded to the _*_GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH_*_ (...)”_ .
_For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works?_
_(...) Peter, the first of the apostles,_ (...)
_Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of _*_THIS APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called _*_UNIVERSAL by the venerable COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON._*_ But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren._ (Pope Gregory, Book 5, Letter 18)
_____________
_”When our PREDECESSOR (pope) Pelagius of blessed memory became aware of this, _*_HE ANNULLED_*_ by a fully valid censure all the proceedings of that same synod (...)”_
_Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,- though _*_WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY AND CONSENT_*_ of the _*_Apostolic See_*_ nothing that might be passed would have _*_ANY FORCE_*_ (...)_ (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 58).
_____________
_”Inasmuch as it is manifest that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE IS, BY THE ORDERING OF GOD, SEER OVER ALL THE CHURCHES,_*_ there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop. (. . .) you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others_ (Pope Gregory, Book 3, Letter 30).
_____________
_”For as to what they say about the _*_CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE,_*_ as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge_ ? (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 12)
_____________
_”[Y]ou must still strictly order them to _*_OBSERVE ALL THINGS AFTER THE PATTERN OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE”_* (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 36)
_____________
_”It was right that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ should take heed, with the view of _*_GUARDING IN ALL RESPECTS THE UNITY_*_ of the Universal Church in the minds of priests”_ (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 2).
_____________
So his ecclesiology 1) assures Roman position to be “the” Apostolic See” (a terminology that can refer only to Rome when used in singular); 2) implies a different kind of primacy in which no particular church can be said to be above but all subject to the Roman authority, inclusive the See of Constantinople, one he had in high regards and esteem; 3) states that the Roman bishop exercises by right and commission the government of the (universal) Church, which does not mean obviously the pope is a bishop whose diocesan space meant the “globe”; 4) specifically called the memory of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon asserting the Roman authority to be “universal” (mostly absurd, notice the cherry-picking of a phrase in which the pope St Gregory rejected a reference to the name “universal bishop” - rightly so - as he allegedly rejected his own cognizance of jurisdictional universality and the See of Rome’s role in it); 5) specifically affirmed that the ecumenicity on counciliar acts are entirely dependent upon the Apostolic See’s confirmation, bringing the memory of other popes who even nullified synodal acts; 6) assumes the Roman authority to order others churches after the pattern (of authoritative decisions, not on strict uniformity of customs) of the Roman See; 7) assumes the Roman church not only takes the heed but guards unity at the universal level and responds for it; 8) refuses Roman ordinary intervention on regular episcopal affairs like consecration of bishops of the Eastern churches, although he did not reject that the Apostolic See is seer over all churches of the world (‘au contrarie’, he affirms it), affirming that it is so by the order of God, not by ecclesiastical organization; 9) affirms clearly that the lack of consent of the Roman church (the Apostolic See) impedes a synod in Constantinople to produce any force (in the context, at the universal level) and the Roman act of nullification makes it to not produce any force at all.
For sure he used the “Petrine Sees” in some (few) of his writings in general as a reference to his brothers of Alexandria and Antioch, the first two after Rome to have received patriarchal status according to canon law, and specially making it a “soft critique” on Constantinopolitan growth of importance over Alexandria and Antioch. But the ecclesiological premises are very clear to me and in line with the theology of popes St Damasus, St Celestine, St Leo the Great, St Gelasius, St Hormisdas (and many more). Not the best names to preach for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology.
Of course St Gregory the Great humbly asserted that episcopal dignity never meant the bishops were “mere extensions” of his own Petrine authority but authorities of their own. That’s 100% Catholic. And the way he addressed the Petrine authority, in line with Pope St Leo the Great, is that only the Roman See could use and exercise the Petrine authority “stricto sensu” albeit others could mean to have it “lato sensu”. The homiliary and epistolary of both Popes St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great above all were widespread on the East with huge acclamation.
And you will know Truth, and truth will set you free (John 8, 32).
God bless!!
Austin have you left protestantism? rarely see any protestants on your channel anymore :)
He could always have Steven Nemes back on...
@@NathanielJ.Franco Oooh good idea! Have him debate a good theologian on the Trinity! 😃
If you go to my home page, you'll see some recent Protestants. My videos are still about 33% for each tradition (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant). For now, I am still Protestant, but I am open to the Lord's guidance
@@GospelSimplicity thank you for the tip, will check them out! A totally different question, feel free not to answer, but would entertain the idea of having Steven Nemes debate the Trinity on your channel with anyone (since he wrote a book partially about that subject)? Would love to see him debate someone like James White who also has written on the topic 😁
I want to hear them discuss how Rome should inherit Peter’s authority when it’s not the first church he founded. If by logic that Peter’s church should be the head of the whole church then all the other churches founded by Peter would also have a claim as he started their church.
The question about a path forward is an interesting one. I should think it would require an ecumenical council, equally weighted with bishops from the Latin and Eastern Orthodox churches, to work things out.
100% agree.
Christians worldwide should re-create the great conciles of the past.
Every decade, a great concile in Rome of about a month, where ALL matters of faith are discussed & harmonized.
There is know real way to know which is the true church. I’ve listen to the debates and discussion for years. In the end one must simply decide for themselves east or west .I’m still struggling.
With you there. It’s been about 3.5 years for me. But I plan to make a decision by the end of the year.
The Catholic Church encompasses both east and west traditions
There are also Western-rite Orthodox churches, so yeah, Orthodox do too
They are both the true Church. We are merely "separated brethren." This debate is tired.
Saint Thomas Aquinas notion of analogy and participation has to be understood at every level of reality...
Reality is fractal, the vein leaf is like the petiole, and the petiole is like the twig, the twig is like the branch, the branch like the limb, the limb is like the trunk and that whole likeness repeats down in a different mode at the root level... Each part that I named acts like the other in some manner and is distinguished from the other part in another manner, reality as a whole is like that, and with Christ's Church there is no difference in structure because these structures in reality are like that because they follow the divine hierarchy, the divine order... The problem with the eastern churches that are not in communion with the Catholic Church is that they are not in communion because they deny that order of reality, they think that at a certain level God's desired order doesn't apply, it applies locally but not universally, the defeats the whole notion of Catholicity and orthodoxy, the right doctrine would be one that applies universally and not just locally. My house is a church, my local parish is a church, the capital's cathedral is a church, the whole diocese is a church, etc... but each church is a participation in a bigger communion going all the way into a universal communion called "The Catholic Church" because it's a universal assambly of the people of God. If you don't understand analogy and participation, the fractality of reality then you are gonna make arbitrary separations at different ontological levels.
This is a great comment
I'm pretty sure every Orthodox everywhere would love to have the Roman bishop be first among equals with Orthodox bishops. The Orthodox don't deny the pattern of reality, no, they assert that the head of the body has made itself so unlike the limbs that the body is in shock, and that once the head is well the whole body can move in tandem once again. We love our eye, but if it causes us to sin..
@@bobbiefluffy the head is very unlike the limbs though, it is the place that collects all the information received by the limbs and the head, it also the place in which you get vision, taste, smell, hearing, and even the sense of touch, it is also the place from where what is collected gets oriented and directed back towards the limbs, being "first" or "primus" means to have a special place not only of honor but of activity, honor goes both ways, the head has to honor the limbs and the limbs have to honor the head, with no arm you still have a person, with no head the person is gone, not because the lack of honor but because the activity of the head being different and primal has to be there performing it's very unique tasks in order to have a full coherent body, the eastern churches that don't have a universal embodied head for the universal body can't perform those very unique tasks universally, they can only act as a cut limb that preserves to the degree that they can the qualities of that limb until it runs out of the impulse given by the embodied head... Now thank God, the Pope has always continued to engage with the patriarchs in order to not leave them like cut limbs, yet the eastern churches try their best to maintain the head away from the body, or to keep it acting as a regular limb and not a head.
Excellent articulation here , I must read and digest it a few times , I really get it now .I always felt that there has to be a king in a kingdom ,there can't be a committee.
Catholic- the bishop of Rome serves in Peter’s office.
Orthodox- all the bishops serve in Peter’s office.
Protestant- we all serve in Peter’s office.
Regarding the Protestant view; if by “Peter’s office”, you mean that local churches have “fellow elders”, then yes.
If you mean, what I’ve often heard, as each Protestant wants to be their own pope, then you demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the fact that Protestants do not view that as a valid office (as evidenced by the 1st century documentation of church structure), and therefor do not need to be their own (or anyone else’s) “pope”
Did Jesus establish a kingdom or a democracy?
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 again, regarding the Protestant view, both examples you described are represented in the Protestant community and Luther himself even admitted the latter.
If everyone is pope, then no one is pope
Edit: half the Protestants I talk with do not recognize their minister as having any more authority than they have and are comfortable with having opposing beliefs even on matters some would see as important.
@@mikelopez8564 how did you get “everyone is a pope” from what I stated?
Again, Protestants do not acknowledge the official office of pope. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants do not see anyone as pope….most certainly not themselves.
Edit, regarding your edit:
Do you see eye to eye with the current pope on all matters?
@@tonyl3762 He established a kingdom. BUT he said: "My kingdom is not made by this world"("Η βασιλεία η εμή ουκ εστίν εκ του κόσμου τούτου"). He also said:" My kingdom is inside you"( Η βασιλεία μου εντός υμών εστί")
There are indeed many churches, but they have to participate of ONE church which includes them. You can think of the concept church at more than only one level. Local Church, and Universal Church. If you have many heads.. you get confusion, which doesn't come from God.
The church was to reflect a similar structure like in the old testament. There is a high priest there is always a leader, or a patriarch.
True. But the High Priest is Christ tho.
The High Priest is the bishop. Roman Catholicism turns all bishops into priests.
Our Great High Priest is Christ. In the early church, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he became Bishop of Rome. There was no papal supremacy based in Rome from the beginning. Also, the book of Revelation speaks of the Seven Churches of Asia: this follows a synodal model not a papal model. You would think if Jesus appointed Peter with a governmental role, then it would be mentioned by St John the Theologian as affecting the churches.
21 days??
Brutal, I know. But already had another video scheduled, and I try to space the videos out a bit
@GospelSimplicity your killing us with these premieres it's like a kid waiting for Christmas, I'm counting down the days.
I have no doubt that Fr. Laurent is a good man, but Fr. Laurent's ecclesiology is very "sus" as the kids say. His views align far more with Ybarra than most Orthodox priests, and certainly far more than the Orthodox saints. I hope I'm surprised when I watch this discussion, but I don't expect to hear a defense of Orthodox ecclesiology.
How do you feel about Zizioulas' ecclesiology? I think the answer to that will correspond to how you might feel about this conversation
does Zizioulas has St. (Saint) before his name? @@GospelSimplicity
Appreciate your comment. Fr. Laurent was most definetly very ecumenical during his last time as a guest on Gospel Simplicity.
There's the answer: Met. Zizoulas can certainly be characterized as an ecumenist. He was criticized in Orthodox theological circles for utilizing non-Orthodox sources in his arguments, particularily for his use of French Catholic theologians & philosophers.
"...the dogmas of Orthodoxy are not subject to mere intellectual evaluation ...[theological] consensus, by the same token, is not simply empirical or representative of some attitudinal "mean"...A mere listing of Western and "Westernized" writers who express their various opinions about this-or-that theological matter is not sufficient, in Orthodoxy, to express the deeper, inner meaning of the things which we hold as Truth...the criteria by which Truth is established...is by experience, not theory and speculation.... [by] those who exist among the properly Baptized, who converse with God, heal the sick, raise the dead, and who converse with Angels, according to St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite. This alone should warn us against the kind of babble which "computer Orthodoxy" engenders, for all of its possible good points...We must simply state the spiritual facts and let God, not organizations and self-created church authorities, reveal the Truth."
- Archbishop Chrysostomos
In my review, Orthodox dogma is determined by the collective lives of the Saints, i.e., those who have been glorified. Having a Phd, or other "academic qualification" does not ipso-facto grant an individual the ability to obtain or elucidate correct discernment on matters of dogma or theology.
The orthodox saints like Pope Leo would appreciate his willingness to concede things to Ybarra ;)
I was caught between Rome and the East. I found a self governing eastern church with apostolic succession, loves its orthodox heritage, doctrine and dogma, while also maintaining communion with the pope of Rome.
We love both our Roman and EO brothers and sisters, sadly we are treated as the red headed step child by both sides.
Roman Catholics today have a generally favorable view of EC. That's clear from reading Vatican 2.
Can a church be self governing in communion with the pope? Only if the pope permits it. But I totally agree…find a good community and church you can grow in and don’t get bogged down with the rest. I’ve got to imagine most Christians throughout history didn’t have a shopping mall of churches like we do but they made it work.
You are worst kind of FAKES as you closely resemble Lord's Church, yet you commemorate Latin arch-heretic and accept him as your head, forsaking Lord who is the only Head of His Eastern Orthodox Church. People.! Be aware of these FAKES.!
As usual, Austin’s hosting is - I never say this - anointed. And this was a very helpful conversation to me. Then ending was not rose-colored, but brotherly & honest.
Wow, thank you so much. I really appreciate that.
I found this discussion an act in futility. 1000 years of separation cannot be resolved or even examined in one hour.
I think resolution or complete examination is too high of a bar. I think an engagement can fall short of that without being futile.
I am a former Roman Catholic and i have listened to many Orthodox and Catholic debates and i was listening to see in more detail why the orthodox were wrong, but surprisingly long storu ahort i am becoming Orthodox
Roman Catholics typically refer to Matthew 16:18 like it's a mic drop moment. The consensus of the church fathers, however, was that the rock Christ is referring to is St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God. It's also important to recognize that Christ is using the plural form of you, not the singular, when He is granting the authority to bind and loose.
One thing I find confusing: If St. Peter was clearly the boss of the apostles, then why wasn't he the first bishop of Jerusalem?
Another thing: Listing a string of popes that assert a unique authority over the Church, which Ybarra does at one point, is not evidence for that unique authority. It's only evidence of Rome's opinion of itself. The proof you would need is the consensus opinion of the church fathers regarding Rome; but that proof actually supports the EO position.
Leave it to the Holy Spirit to decide which churches and denominations flourish and which dwindle.
The path is narrow and few are finding it? This sounds like prosperity gospel.
Miller, read Acts 15 and 16. You'll see that increase in numbers is often correlated to God's approval. Which is interesting when 1 See of Rome somehow gets bigger than 4 Sees opposing it to the point where they almost face extinction.
What does Father Lawrence mean by "orthodox catholic?"
The official name of the Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church.
@@leopistis3560 Thank you. I didn't know that.
@@bobjenkins3rdThank you. I knew a Greek Orthodox monk who didn't use that phrase when he wrote to me. Neither did my Greek Orthodox neighbors.
"Roman Catholic" has two meanings. It can stand for the people who attend Roman liturgies, the Traditional Latin Mass, the vernacular one, or both. But some Catholics go to Eastern liturgies using St. John Chriostom wrote in the fourth century. Some Eastern Rite Catholics don't want to be called Roman Catholic, though they're still members of the Catholic Church, the one the Pope rules as Christ's vice president, if you will. We call the Pope the Church's "visible head" distinguish him from Christ THE head of the Catholic Church.
I wish the Catholics and the Orthodox would get back together. I believe that it could happen, if the Pope and the Patriarchs would just sit down and do it.
Fun Fact: St. Heraklas of Alexandria was the first in recorded history to be referred as Pope, in a letter written none other than by the bishop of Rome, Dionysius. “I received rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope Heraklas”
Regardless of the title, because Pope is a title, of higher reference over other bishops, but still just a title. Why would the supreme bishop of Rome receive rule and ordinance from another supposed lower bishop?
Pope means patriarch
Pope = Patriarch in different language. So the two is the same meaning, the same position, and the same holiness. That's one of many reasons about why the Orthodox always refuse the supremacy of Pope.
I’m Roman Catholic. I have been all my life and I’m older.
I do not like the pride that I feel from my church of Rome.
I love the orthodox and I love the Greeks and I love it all.
So my thinking is what would Jesus really say about all this???
Divisions come with people not with Jesus…
Jesus is the unifier. So to me, this argument is not some thing worth while!
I believe that Jesus does not care about all of this.
I believe that Jesus wants us to listen directly to Him.
I believe that Jesus would say all of you should be able to worship Me in each other’s churches.
That’s how I feel and that’s what I would prefer to do.
I don’t think the legalisms the rules the rigidity makes any sense to Jesus Christ our Savior.
So when I hear all of this, I feel really sad because it’s a worthless discussion in my opinion.
I find it harming people not helping people.
As for the highest authority, we know it’s Jesus.
Yes, we need a human to interpret. But I would rather see more than one in authority since most people east and West have different ideas anyway.
So I would think that the two churches should have one representative for each side.
I know they do but they must agree on most everything in my thinking?
And if they don’t agree, then it must not be that crucial.
There’s only a few things that are so crucial.
But you can still worship the Lord, and not agree with every single thing with each other.
Maybe I make no sense
So this may never end and that’s because we have humans trying to figure it out.
Let’s go everybody go right to Jesus Christ.
We could have both patriarchs/Pope or whatever you want to call the authority working together.
And maybe they should put together a special catechism that agrees with both sides and still has authority.
I think that this is absolutely terrible.
What’s going on here because it’s never resolved. Instead of resolving it everybody’s talking about how it exists.
So find some solutions everybody. This is ridiculous. This is why Protestantism is very enticing to many people.
Thank you.
This is the question woll asked on Judgement day is "Why have you rejected Mt. 16:16-19.?".
There was no division in 1st millennium, the Orthodox needed an excuse around 1054.
This could have stated when the Church switch from Greek to Latin language.
Today is a problem that the Church language switched from Latin to American English language in 2008!
Even Paul obey Peter I and council of Jerusalem and St. john confirmed successor of Papacy.
The Peter II took away the Eucharist from the Church and the priesthood today.
Different degrees of Petrine authority (from Bishop to Patriarch) does not follow that the Primate of the Church possesses absolute authority, universal jurisdiction or the charism of infallibility. Bishops can err and fall into heresy, that includes the Pope.
Also, it is not Scriptures or the Fathers' witness that Saint Peter received the Power of the Keys alone. In fact, they say that all the Apostles received the same power. Saint Peter didn't govern the other Apostles. All the Apostles had immediate and universal jurisdiction.
"But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'"
The Gospel of Matthew
Somehow the church ended up mimicking the worldly form... even with thrones, and crowns.
@@pigetstuck That's a nice attempt. But what about "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And whatever YOU bind on earth will be loosed in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."
@@honeysimon838 None of that contradicts what I said. And we can read an account of how Peter and the other apostles used those keys. They didn't set up a little Christian empire.
@@pigetstuck The Roman Empire was given to Holy Mother Church by God. Refer to Taylor Marshall’s book based on the Book of Daniel. I think it’s’Eternal City.
@@pigetstuckThe keys were only given to Peter in Matthew 16, the powers to loose and bind were given to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18, but not the keys.
If primacy is a problem why not have a pope from the eastern churches as well? Whomever fits the best. I would think peters successor would be any bishop that is following Christ. Almost sounds like pride has gotten the best of the greeks and the Romans. As far as fillioque i can't understand why we can't agree that there are mysteries we just cant know for sure
"All bishops are Peter". Ok, but there has to be a Peter of Peters. It's a PATTERN, as Pageau would say.
St Peter didn’t practice universal supremacy over St Thomas’ churches in India, St Matthew in Ethiopia, etc. Also, Pageau is firmly Orthodox and does not see this “pattern” the way you do.
He was higher up in the hierarchy than saint Thomas when Christ was on earth, and also after His Ascension to Heaven. The practicality of the matter is irrelevant. Also, nobody expects Rome to intervene in everything all the time. If there was a big conflict, of course someone could go from India to Rome and back, even 2000 years ago.
Pageau is something to wonder about, how he talks about pattern yet is blind concerning his cutting off from the structural Pattern of the Universal Church. @@nuzzi6620
who's Peter's Peter? 😉 Peter's all the way down
@@nuzzi6620 They didn't have cellphone.
@@namapalsu2364that’s what papism is false. Each Bishop is instrusted with his flock. In catholicism the Pope is the only real bishop. This is heretical and alien to how the early church operated
I hear different things from different EO people about succession. This priest says all bishops are Peter. Other EO say the other apostles were given the same authority as Peter. There is no consistency.
No inconsistencies. It's about St Peters faith.
Biblically one signifier of Christ's Church is the Petrine Authority. Only one bishop traces its authority back to Peter.
I can't stop thinking about this interview. I know he probably didn't mean it this way but it really irked me how Fr. Laurent said about the division between Greek and Latin. I know he probably didn't mean it in a bad way but many people use it in a bad way. I know this is going to bother some readers but I've noticed a lot of prejudice, ethnocentrism, tribalism, and division since watching Catholic productions. Just the other day I watched on Pints with Aquinas how a Christian family hated Catholics because they were "Latin" (Italian) and they themselves were Anglo....so he had to join the Eastern Catholic Church in order to not mix and betray the anglosphere. To divide the Greeks and the Latins does not make sense even here, culturally or genetically because they are not mutually exclusive. When you study haplogroups and DNA, you will see that a lot of what is actually western europe (by DNA not by prejudiced maps), you will see that europeans share many of the same exact haplogroups or DNA, we're a big family that spread out. If you're in eastern europe (which is not the greeks exclusively), your haplogroups may show a slight difference. Greece is in central and eastern europe but they make the basis of western civilization and their DNA spread to the west (as that's how western europe was colonized especially by the roman empire who's leader was greek Alexander the Great). The Latins are in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, parts of Belgium, some in Switzerland and Greece, and part of Turkey and some places in eastern europe like the in the balkans and slavic places. But when people say Latin and Anglosphere or Latin and Greeks, they mean to divide and don't actually mean the slavic people of Eastern Europe (MANY of whom you cannot differentiate from Latins because they have pale skin and black hair and eyes). And when you, as a Latin, have light features, you "seize" to be Latin in their eyes. So yes, there is "racism" or "tribalism" in the european world and it stretches to the beginning of time. Aristotle contended that the Greeks were an ideal people because they possessed a medium skin-tone, in contrast to pale northerners. He went into detail. And now the northerners and easterners are saying that they are actually Hellenistic and separate themselves from the Latins. And it all comes down to not knowing history and dna.
I don't think he's making an ethnic claim. I think he's making a comment about language. The language barrier between east and west in the first few centuries of the church had a major impact on the development of theology (i.e. people are influenced by the books they read, which are in their language)
Are we not obliged to recognize the ethnocentrism of both Orthodox and Anglo-saxon Protestantism present in their respective historical countries? Being Latin has always meant belonging to a transnational human family, The Catholic Church. There is no one single historical worldwide known organization that concretely represents the voluntary union of all peoples by what is most important: Faith. The broken and sectary ecclesiology of both protestant panheresy and orthodox nationalism are just so silly for any serious christian to even consider. Imagine chosing necessarily between nationalities in order to elect the True Christ's Church, better pick fast before the next schism...
@@deussacracommunioest2108 Just yesterday, my sister brought a Coptic friend over to my house and the first thing the woman said to me when she got me alone was "you know that the first pope was actually Mark." And I said, "Jesus himself ordained Saint Peter."