For me, when I was still torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, what brought clarity and settled the issue was understanding the extensiveness of the Vatican I claims. I had read Vatican I before. But for some reason, watching Jay debate Ybarra really brought this out and settled it for me, specifically when Jay was trying to force Ybarra to defend Vatican I by pointing out that Vatican I itself claims to be the view of the universal church in every age. It’s like once I understood that was the Roman claim, I dropped it like a hot potato. Now looking back it seems obvious, and I don’t know how I didn’t get this sooner.
If the Papacy was Biblical, then Saint Peter who Catholics claim to be the first Pope would have been the central Apostle of the Church of Acts. The patristic structure and functions of the Church would have revolved solely around Peter at the top as the “Vicar” of God-but of course, this was historically and ecclesiastically not the case.
Didn't the Vatican release a (or multiple) document admitting that the papacy functioned according to the Orthodox ecclesiology in the first millennium and not Vatican 1? How can they even argue or debate that first millennium had a Vatican 1 papacy?
The answer I received from one of them is that they expect everything from this pontificate to be anathematized. Talk about pie in the sky! The cognitive dissonance never ends.
Wow, Jay! This could not have come at a better time. In my journey of Orthodoxy, this is not a very well understood subject for me. I saw you streamed this the other day, and i was ecstatic. Thank you for the coverage you do for the Orthodox faith, brother. ☦️ I'll be taking notes.
I'm not super familiar with church history compared to most people on here, but Nestorius is one of those that is hard to get wrong. Shows how silly these people are.
@@shiningdiamond5046 I think that because Voice of Reason is mainly trained and taught the proof texts by Michael Lofton and Ybarra, he just regurgitates what they say, and so the line of ignorance continues on.
If Peter is the sole reason the Bishop of Rome has autocratic authority, then there should be similarly with the Bishop of Antioch, as Peter was the first one. I would say that the apostolic duality of Paul and Peter is what made the Bishop of Rome’s position so reverent, along with Rome being the capital. We see later when Constantinople was declared the capital the Bishop of Constantinople is considered to have equal authority to that of Rome in Canon 28 of Chalcedon
What does a Roman Catholic do that believes the pope in the sense that the orthodox do but also believes that Union with Rome is necessary? Like I get the papacy has been abused to all hell, but I still believe in a unified church.
you have to base your belief on the evidence at this point. the next study it seems for yourself is to study what makes the church uninified...spoiler not the pope 😅
How can you believe in the unified church when you have schismatics? The Catholics decided to schism themselves by wanting to break away. If someone wants to break away how can you stop them? Unfortunately it's been decided since 1066 that there can't be one church if there are people who defile it. Honestly we are better off separated. And there is still one church. The one true church, it would be nice if people could see this but they won't...
but i honestly believe one can still be in the true church even if its hijacked by a bad pope. peter is the rock, to leave the rock is to leave the foundation christ established, regardless if the current rock is a judas @@kaden7374
I'm a catholic, I just came across this and going over the details hurts my head and its perhaps that some information is foreign to me, but I'm interested in this. All I want to know is How do orthodox view or who is the Pope/Bishop of Rome/Vicar of Christ to the Eastern Orthodox Christian brothers. i have met an orthodox Christian temporarily in person but never had the chance to ask him so maybe can I solicit someone else's views or opinion?
So there seems to be two questions here. One is how do we view the Pope? When the Pope was Orthodox there was a lot of reverence for the orthodoxy of Rome and it’s place is Primate among the churches (primacy in place of honor not supremacy or jurisdiction) For the second question there isn’t an orthodox “pope”. Bishops run their own churches and follow their metropolitan for regional matters or patriarch for things higher than that but even still these senior bishops don’t have anything close to papal power
The pope is now a heretic, a schismatic bishop. Before the schism the Bishop of Rome was the highest in honour, nothing to do with St. Peter as the leader (and the Early Church didn't claim St. Peter had supreme authority either, likewise does Lateran 4 ruin the keys argument), but rather that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred in Rome, so Rome had double Apostolic lineage. Alexandria and Antioch are both Petrine Sees. As for the Church, it works councilliar, as it did in the first millenium, the Patriarch of Constantinople is the 'pope' of those under him, and Moscow for those under him, and Antioch for those under him, etc., There is no human who heads the Church as an autocrat, only the Godman Christ. If issues are to arise, they're solved via councils, like the Church did in the first millenium and in Acts. the Patriarch of Constantinople is now the Prima inter Patres, or first amongst equals, which was what the roman bishop was once.
Been learning a lot from you, Jay. Thanks. I left another comment on another vid about the normative-existential dialectic for Protestants. I'm going to post the question below
"Because the church fathers contradict on various ideas, as do councils (like Trullo in affirming both Laodicea and Carthage, when the canon lists contradict), and if you have a Prot who agrees with you that the normative catholic authority of the canon comes normatively from church authority in an existential dialectic with liturgical participation and contemplation, how are our epistemologies fundamentally distinct? It seems like you took VanTil, brought him to EO, and you're using that to critique Pr. Bob who hasn't really thought through the philosophy here. That doesn't seem to be a good argument against Kruger's Canon Revisited, or Webster's Holy Scripture."
Sola Scripturas (ss) says that the only infallible authority is the Bible. The Bible were written at the time of the apostles. The apostles had an infallible authority to (a) write scripture, (b) define the canon, (c) interpret scriptures, (d) give doctrines and disciplines, (c) bound the mind of the believer to their infellible teachings. It follows that ss was not possible at the time the they was writing the Bible. Therefore, ss is not biblical and non of those texts used by protestants to support ss is actually supporting it.
I’m sorry it’s hard to understand the orthodox position when you guys jump form thing to thing really fast while also fast talking. As a German who knows decent English it’s hard to understand a thing
Gentlemen the systemic global CORPORATE CHURCH and CONSCIENCE is the Judiciary. The Vatican is religion, the charitable arm of the CORPORATE CHURCH and CONSCIENCE. The only separation of CHURCH and STATE is the Judiciary is a separate CORPORATION.
For me, when I was still torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, what brought clarity and settled the issue was understanding the extensiveness of the Vatican I claims.
I had read Vatican I before. But for some reason, watching Jay debate Ybarra really brought this out and settled it for me, specifically when Jay was trying to force Ybarra to defend Vatican I by pointing out that Vatican I itself claims to be the view of the universal church in every age.
It’s like once I understood that was the Roman claim, I dropped it like a hot potato. Now looking back it seems obvious, and I don’t know how I didn’t get this sooner.
Great job, guys! Luigi needs to get on UA-cam more! 👍
If the Papacy was Biblical, then Saint Peter who Catholics claim to be the first Pope would have been the central Apostle of the Church of Acts. The patristic structure and functions of the Church would have revolved solely around Peter at the top as the “Vicar” of God-but of course, this was historically and ecclesiastically not the case.
Staying off of X until Lent is over, but if Luigi's out here checkin' comments you're a gigachad.
Funny how when you keep reading the quote it ends up disproving the Roman Catholic claim
Which quotee
Didn't the Vatican release a (or multiple) document admitting that the papacy functioned according to the Orthodox ecclesiology in the first millennium and not Vatican 1? How can they even argue or debate that first millennium had a Vatican 1 papacy?
we covered both documents
The answer I received from one of them is that they expect everything from this pontificate to be anathematized. Talk about pie in the sky! The cognitive dissonance never ends.
@@eikon7001that and "it's not dogmatic"
Wow, Jay! This could not have come at a better time. In my journey of Orthodoxy, this is not a very well understood subject for me. I saw you streamed this the other day, and i was ecstatic. Thank you for the coverage you do for the Orthodox faith, brother. ☦️
I'll be taking notes.
If the Force is real, why did Order 66 happen?
lmao
Thank you Jay and Ben/Luigi for this review. It is difficult to imagine anyone defending Nestorius.
Thanks be to God for your work gentlemen! ROCOR WR Father Germaine
Great job Luigi. Thanks Jay
Start @ 3:38 👍🏻🔥
Muchas gracias, Frankie
Hard to start there when the intro is 🔥
I'm not super familiar with church history compared to most people on here, but Nestorius is one of those that is hard to get wrong. Shows how silly these people are.
Great show as always 💪🏼
Enjoy and like and share and turn on notiifcations!
Jay could you do a tour of the books that you own one day?
Thanks Jay ! Amazing guest ! Could you please tell where Basil wrote to Meletious that he is the head of churches (time 1:05.14) ?
The pope is judge dredd.
" I am the Law!!"
Lol literally thinks he's God
Why does Alex (the so-called "Voice of Reason") have to lie a lot?!?!
You have discernment issues
how?
@@JayDyer jay there is a youtube channel called pursuit of wonder. It’s garbage
I dont think he's lying as much to say he's not as up to date with the scholarship and synodal statements on these recent matters
@@shiningdiamond5046
I think that because Voice of Reason is mainly trained and taught the proof texts by Michael Lofton and Ybarra, he just regurgitates what they say, and so the line of ignorance continues on.
1:12:00 - 1:18:00. Slam Dunk.
I haven't gone through either of the videos fully yet. Is this response to Vigilius found in Price's book?
Mama Mia!
'Machine gun' fallacy instead of gish gallop always makes me laugh really hard for some reason 😂
Cool thanks for work
W Goldeneye 007 intro song
Señor Ben Luigi lol
If Peter is the sole reason the Bishop of Rome has autocratic authority, then there should be similarly with the Bishop of Antioch, as Peter was the first one. I would say that the apostolic duality of Paul and Peter is what made the Bishop of Rome’s position so reverent, along with Rome being the capital. We see later when Constantinople was declared the capital the Bishop of Constantinople is considered to have equal authority to that of Rome in Canon 28 of Chalcedon
What does a Roman Catholic do that believes the pope in the sense that the orthodox do but also believes that Union with Rome is necessary?
Like I get the papacy has been abused to all hell, but I still believe in a unified church.
What is necessary is not a union but Rome returning to Orthodoxy. In your case, you change your belief.
you have to base your belief on the evidence at this point. the next study it seems for yourself is to study what makes the church uninified...spoiler not the pope 😅
How can you believe in the unified church when you have schismatics? The Catholics decided to schism themselves by wanting to break away. If someone wants to break away how can you stop them? Unfortunately it's been decided since 1066 that there can't be one church if there are people who defile it. Honestly we are better off separated. And there is still one church. The one true church, it would be nice if people could see this but they won't...
Truth > false union
but i honestly believe one can still be in the true church even if its hijacked by a bad pope. peter is the rock, to leave the rock is to leave the foundation christ established, regardless if the current rock is a judas
@@kaden7374
I'm a catholic, I just came across this and going over the details hurts my head and its perhaps that some information is foreign to me, but I'm interested in this. All I want to know is How do orthodox view or who is the Pope/Bishop of Rome/Vicar of Christ to the Eastern Orthodox Christian brothers. i have met an orthodox Christian temporarily in person but never had the chance to ask him so maybe can I solicit someone else's views or opinion?
So there seems to be two questions here. One is how do we view the Pope? When the Pope was Orthodox there was a lot of reverence for the orthodoxy of Rome and it’s place is Primate among the churches (primacy in place of honor not supremacy or jurisdiction)
For the second question there isn’t an orthodox “pope”. Bishops run their own churches and follow their metropolitan for regional matters or patriarch for things higher than that but even still these senior bishops don’t have anything close to papal power
The pope is now a heretic, a schismatic bishop. Before the schism the Bishop of Rome was the highest in honour, nothing to do with St. Peter as the leader (and the Early Church didn't claim St. Peter had supreme authority either, likewise does Lateran 4 ruin the keys argument), but rather that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred in Rome, so Rome had double Apostolic lineage. Alexandria and Antioch are both Petrine Sees.
As for the Church, it works councilliar, as it did in the first millenium, the Patriarch of Constantinople is the 'pope' of those under him, and Moscow for those under him, and Antioch for those under him, etc., There is no human who heads the Church as an autocrat, only the Godman Christ. If issues are to arise, they're solved via councils, like the Church did in the first millenium and in Acts.
the Patriarch of Constantinople is now the Prima inter Patres, or first amongst equals, which was what the roman bishop was once.
nice
Alex’s voice is so freakin Deep😜. He should change his channel to “Voice Of Ol Man River” 🫢
51:00 how do popes relate to sacred tradition
Been learning a lot from you, Jay. Thanks.
I left another comment on another vid about the normative-existential dialectic for Protestants. I'm going to post the question below
"Because the church fathers contradict on various ideas, as do councils (like Trullo in affirming both Laodicea and Carthage, when the canon lists contradict), and if you have a Prot who agrees with you that the normative catholic authority of the canon comes normatively from church authority in an existential dialectic with liturgical participation and contemplation, how are our epistemologies fundamentally distinct?
It seems like you took VanTil, brought him to EO, and you're using that to critique Pr. Bob who hasn't really thought through the philosophy here. That doesn't seem to be a good argument against Kruger's Canon Revisited, or Webster's Holy Scripture."
57:00 great point on the potential of the seed of papal authority becoming liberal or conservative
Sola Scripturas (ss) says that the only infallible authority is the Bible. The Bible were written at the time of the apostles. The apostles had an infallible authority to (a) write scripture, (b) define the canon, (c) interpret scriptures, (d) give doctrines and disciplines, (c) bound the mind of the believer to their infellible teachings. It follows that ss was not possible at the time the they was writing the Bible. Therefore, ss is not biblical and non of those texts used by protestants to support ss is actually supporting it.
I’m sorry it’s hard to understand the orthodox position when you guys jump form thing to thing really fast while also fast talking. As a German who knows decent English it’s hard to understand a thing
Did you try .5 speed?
Or .75, .5 is too slow😂
try captions
Is it me or did Ybarra fall off?
📚👑🙏👍
Gentlemen the systemic global CORPORATE CHURCH and CONSCIENCE is the Judiciary. The Vatican is religion, the charitable arm of the CORPORATE CHURCH and CONSCIENCE. The only separation of CHURCH and STATE is the Judiciary is a separate CORPORATION.