Although I do agree with you I don’t really think majority is an accurate indicator of truth. Wasn’t the church pretty Unitarian at one point before the first council? (Could be wrong, still learning church history)
@@Wyckateer That’s a controversial subject and I’m not a scholar. It’s clearly the case that some of the terminology of the Trinity was a development (homosious, distinct hypostases), but the identification of the Messiah as YHWH is already there in the Enochic literature, and there is already the 2 power in Heaven doctrine among some Jews and not complete Unitarianism among all of them at the start of the Christian faith. St Justin the Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus Tertullian of Carthage all treat Christ as God yet distinct from the Father and there being only one True God. To the degree which they and many other figures were subordinationist such as those of the Alexandrian school is an interesting question as many others likely were.
@Erik_Ybarra I totally sympathize with the Eastern Orthodox position and genuinely want to be convinced, but my hang up is regarding the language used toward the position and authority of the Bishop of Rome in the first 7 ecumenical councils. The Eastern bishops accept the Bishop of Rome’s emissaries and letters read out. The Eastern bishops on record in an infallible council agree without exception what is decreed by the Bishop of Rome. For me, in order to get to the Eastern Orthodox position it seems like there are a few routes: 1) The Eastern Bishops simply tolerate but silently disagree with the Roman Pontiff’s increasing power grab for universal jurisdiction. Keep in mind many of these Eastern Bishops are canonized as Saints. Does this not pose a problem regarding their sainthood, that they would behave so duplicitously? 2) The Eastern Bishops again simply tolerate the Pope’s power grab. But does that not then mean that the Eastern Bishops essentially took their own legs out from under themselves? In every other area they are so brilliant and calculating with regards to ecclesiology and theology. Would they be so careless as to not realize that their complicity in the matter would lead to the very thing they were striving to avoid - universal papal jurisdiction? 3) Again, assuming the Eastern Bishops were simply tolerating the Papal power grab, does that not implicate themselves in the matter? Would they, not be as much to blame as the Roman pontiff? For them not to strongly oppose heterodoxy in this instance when they vehemently oppose other forms of heterodoxy elsewhere doesn’t seem consistent. The Eastern Bishops were courageous and striving to preserve the faith. To simply tolerate the Roman Bishops’ power grab would make them cowards - and I don’t find that tenable. I’m sure there is something I am missing, but as far as I can tell those are the options to contend with. At any rate, I truly hope and pray that the Lord helps us Christians, both East and West, to become humbler, gentler, and kinder and that the Holy Spirit finds desiring vessels in the East and West to work through to bring about the unity in his perfect timing. Thanks for all your work Erik.
@@kianoghuz1033 Right. But the Photian Council is much later in 859. I’m trying to understand the Photian Synod/Council’s position in light of earlier papal claims that were made in infallible councils (accepted by East and West as infallible) like the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Constantinople of 680 under Agatho’s pontificate.
@@joshchastain5 You won't understand the photian council because you are seeing it through a modern roman catholic lens. You won't understand as well why it was so easy for easterners to formulate canon 28 at Chalcedon for a primacy of honor for Constantinople. That's why context matters. If the papacy was something so divinely revealed, this canon would've never even made the final canons of which we have copies
Seraphim Hamilton made a really good video giving a foundational reasoning of Iconology without appealing to a Doctrinal Development, in the sense of innovation. The Principles of venerating the Prototype, God, through types, objects, was well demonstrated to be found in writer like Saint Ignatius the Godbearer and Saint Clement of Alexandria. I think if we can do the same for the Papacy, which you have done here in this video. The foundational Principles exist, and the standard to apply these principals more broadly has been set by Icon Veneration being Dogmatic in Nicaea II.
Catholics would reject that the doctrinal development we espouse is an innovation. And I think Erick is also making that claim, but using the language of minimal versus maximal approach. The minimal approach shows that all the principles supporting the modern notion of the papacy were well demonstrated in the early church by the sources that both Catholics and Orthodox accept, even though not found explicitly or maximally expressed.
Greetings Eric, I hope all is well. There's a YT channel called Philosophy for All where the author converted to Catholicism. I thought that might interest you.
How early does the evidence for the 3 minimal facts go though? Can we establish this from 2nd century / 100s sources alone? What about 3rd century / 200s sources?
@@Erick_Ybarra I understand that in the context of the dispute between the two, but objectively speaking, from a historical standpoint, how early does evidence for the minimal 3 actually go? Especially the perpetuity of Peter's office in Rome through his successors? Btw, I think one can argue, conceptually speaking, that perpetuity of office is closely related to being divinely established, since God Himself is usually the only source of perpetual attributes like this, though I dunno if this can be shown with full certainty. Just a thought
This is actually correct. That is, IF the rationale put forth to justify the claims of Nicaea 2 is sufficient to "prove" the claims made in the acts of N2 regarding the necessity of the veneration of icons as a condition of salvation, then it is arguable that, according to the same or similar rationale, the Church of Rome can justify Papal Supremacy. You've basically made the classical "modus ponens" argument. But note the "if." With modus ponens, the conclusion is demonstrated only if the premises are actually true (as is the case with any argument). You are correct that the claims regarding Papal Supremacy are of similar substance to those regarding icon veneration. The problem is that this "cuts both ways." In one direction, the person who accepts the claims regarding icon veneration as rational, if he has any desire to be consistent, would need to accept Papal Supremacy on similar grounds. However, for the rest of us with solid training in philosophy, history, theology, and a working familiarity with Scripture, we simply recognize both positions lack clear support from reason, history, or the Word of God. Your approach to this is impressive and clever, and it might temporarily stun or confuse some Orthodox or even sway the less strident -- at least those who think that being consistent or rational actually matters. But rather than proving Papal Supremacy to be correct, you are really just showing that both it and mandated icon veneration are almost certainly errors. That was probably not your goal, but it is nonetheless an interesting move.
This argument in the video is strictly for an EO vs RC venue where certain sourcs are simply assumed to be unquestionably authoritative. As to whether the whole thing corresponds to reality is another question
@@Erick_Ybarra writes "As to whether the whole thing corresponds to reality is another question" Seems like it would be the most important question, but I too like to play "what if" thought experiments. :)
@@philoalethia It is a more important question but there were shorter objectives before getting to Mordor. I think that there is good evidence for the Papacy and I'd be open to having a dialogue with someone who thinks that the data is to be interpreted otherwise, as well as what the implications for that are.
@@Erick_Ybarra, a good place to start with that discussion might be simply to be clear about your terms -- something few apologists for Rome are willing to do. For example, say/writing "I think there is good evidence for the Papacy" is a sensible statement considered narrowly. That is, there is good evidence that, over decades and centuries, the Church of Christ has generally considered the Bishop of Rome to have a special honor of representing the apostle Peter. However, what you actually mean is "I think there is good evidence for Papal Supremacy (and infallibility)," right? Basically only adherents to the Church of Rome agree with the latter. But apologists for Rome say the former intending the latter and, deliberately or not, effectively trick and confuse others. This rather sloppy conflation of ideas and terms is a habitual problem in this and related topics, especially when combined with the reading of contemporary ideas back into ancient texts and just plain bad reasoning.
If the dogma (truth revealed by God) of papal supremacy is a development, could it not only be binding through the authority of a council, as was the case with every single dogma for the first several centuries? Otherwise, you are reduced to essentially defining something by using it as the definition, e.g., that the dogma of papal supremacy is a valid theological development is known because the pope who holds papal supremacy decreed it to be so.
I‘m not following your parallel with icons. Icons have historically been used in the church and even before that as seen in the Dura Europos Synagogue. There was nothing minimal about using icons; it was simply a case of people being influenced by Muslim reasoning which was easily corrected by theological principles related to Christology and the sacramental understanding of matter. But even if it were historical, it was in no way minimal. There are however minimals in the way Vatican I defines the papacy and alluding to honorific language and granted primacy due to political status and the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The honor does not equate to divinely mandated authority of universal jurisdiction. You can see honorific language used for other bishops too that today can be seen as “papal” sounding. It was a tradition. But I often see use quoting to support your argument that are clearly taken outside their cultural context and it doesn’t help just makes it seem deceptive…
The theological rationale of venerating icons as windows to heaven. That does not get historical reflection SIMPLY by the existence of icons. However, I would love to debate the issue of images in early Christianity as I think they were mostly discouraged if not shunned. The scholarship simply doesn't support your assertions. In any case, I do think a case can be made for icons. As for the minimal facts, I listed them in this small audio but this audio is part of a larger lecture and the lecture is simply the introduction to a whole course. So I cover TONS more than simply honorific language and Peter's martyrdom.
@@Erick_Ybarra I‘m still not following the parallel. Icons were used in Solomon‘s Temple, and whether or not scholars think icons were discouraged by early Christians, it would be misguided to overlook their obvious historical use in the faith. Solomon‘s Temple was filled with icons and would outrage an iconoclastic Muslim for example. Moses‘ bronze serpent on a pole and all who looked at it after being bitten by snakes and were healed shows that imagery has been used and wasn’t just decoration but a bridge between the heavenly and earthly realms. That‘s why the issue of iconoclasm is inherently about its view on matter. My priest once said in a sermon “Matter matters” 😂 I didn‘t watch your larger lecture maybe I will later. But to stay on your icon parallel, Fr. Gabriel Wissa wrote an article on the early usage of icons and proof of it (outside of the obviousness of Scripture).
Get a copy of "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" (Ante-Nicene)....the Orthodox win Hands down according to the Apostolic Tradition ( And Scripture).
@@Erick_Ybarra Yes, David Bercot was born and raised Jehovah's witness but then became an Evangelical . As an Evangelical he began to study the Apostolic/Ante-Nicene Fathers which led him to become an Anglican priest, eventually editing the Dictionary of Early Christian. I still have a collection of his teaching CDs and books. What led him to embrace the Anabaptist/Mennonites is that later focus on the moral teachings of the Early Church which the Roman/Orthodox/Anglicans did away with and changed many of the Early Churches beliefs on lifestyle. I myself was an Evangelical and became an high church Anglo-Catholic from the ancient British Church tradition. I'm also Franciscan because of moral teachings of the Gospels from a Franciscan perspective.
@@roddumlauf9241 you mean which Roman/Orthodox/Anglicans/Presbyterians/Baptists/Anabaptists/Mennonites/Methodists/Lutherans/Calvinists have done away with? Even today its hard to find a brethren community with the absolute commitments to certain beliefs of primitive Christians. Not every classical Mennonite community is even in conformity due to the lack of propitiation for the living and the dead in their Eucharist. It was all a testament to the need for doctrinal development and the need for a centralized magisterium such as existed in Jerusalem during the age of the Apostles when a dispute arose concerning the need for circumcision among the Gentiles.
@@Erick_Ybarra Erick, I don't know how Bercot squares becoming Anabaptist because so much of his doctrinal beliefs are in contradiction with the Mennonite/Anabaptist's neo-gnostic anti-sacramentalism perspectives. He tends to lean towards them because of moral issues. Example: Did you watch the debate between David Bercot and Dr. Peter Kreeft on "It's Just War" - Should Christians Fight?" Debate ? ua-cam.com/video/K4xQaDDKY7k/v-deo.html This is one of many issues on morality where the Church has strayed....the list goes on and one ( we're not talking about doctrines of the faith, but morals of the faith. Because we are saved by faith working in love, not faith alone.
I think Cyprian’s De Unitate Ecclesiae severely undermines Fact #2. Cyprian sees every bishop as a successor to St. Peter. He makes no mention of Rome.
The mere fact that Apostle Paul had such a big influence on the Church and the Gospels, should be enough to dissuade you from the idea that any one apostle was supreme in any sense of the word. Why did Jesus use all those superfluous apostles and give them keys to the kingdom as well if he meant to have a direct earthly successor embodied with any one human?
The history of the Church and how she was governed in the first millenium proves out the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Many disputes among eastern bishops were not resolved until they appealed to Rome for a decision. Anyone who has studied the least bit of law knows you don't appeal to someone who you don't believe has the authority and jurisdiction to render a binding decision to find resolution. The orthos quickly expose themselves as proto-protestants in their rejection of the papacy. St Ireneaus wrote that all churches at his time knew and complied with the requirement of agreement with the Church at Rome. St Cyprian wrote that anyone who was not under the unity of the Peter could not think he "holds the faith" and "if he deserts the the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built"then he could not "be confident hat he is in the Church". It goes on and on. When the Lord Jesus established His Church He gave the keys to Peter. All other Apostles also could execute a similar authority within their own regions they presided over (like Mark in Alexandria, or James in Jerusalem). But there still would be a requirement for a primary authority for resolution in disputes (something the Orthodox cannot demonstrate today, which also shows why the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a necessary installment).
*The mere fact that Apostle Paul had such a big influence on the Church and the Gospels, should be enough to dissuade you from the idea that any one apostle was supreme in any sense of the word.* And yet, Paul was not called Cephas (Rock), nor given the keys, nor made a promise to have the Church built upon him. You're making a category error but assuming that the one who can best articulate theology ought to have the highest authority. *Why did Jesus use all those superfluous apostles and give them keys to the kingdom as well if he meant to have a direct earthly successor embodied with any one human?* I think you've missed the point of the presentation. The debate is on *primacy* not *validity*. There is no dispute that Churches that were started by the other Apostles in various places are legitimate. The question is, which of them carries on the authority vested specifically and only to St. Peter.
This could seem a "W". But honestly, even in a catholic paschal's wager, Orthodoxy wins because Catholicism admits Orthodox sacraments and vincible knowledge of the papacy (St. Gregory Palamas, St. Sergius of Radonezh, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Alexander Nevsky). At this point we should strive towards a greater holy catholic orthodox church, where Christ is the monarch, not a man like earthly kingdoms.
In that case why do catholics venerate palamas and gregory of narek? When they were schismatic and florence clearly teaches there is no salvation flr schismatics. Cristal clear a contradiction
@@kianoghuz1033 A non sequiter but nonetheless an example of the pot calling the kettle black. You condemn the Latin Fathers and venerate them despite their profession of the Filioque and papal supremacy.
@@kianoghuz1033 You're also missing that figures like Palamas and Gregory of Narek are only locally venerated, and are not formally considered Catholic saints. This is like many Orthodox in Lebanon who visit the shrines of St Charbel, St Rafqa and St Nimetullah (who are Catholic saints). The difference is that these individuals are not formally schismatic in themselves, but instead were born into a schismatic Church. Moreover, Eastern Catholics that venerate Palamas, for example, cannot affirm a real EED. Lastly, Florence does teach that none outside the Catholic Church can be saved. However, modern Catholic ecclesiology upholds that there can be those united to the Catholic Church who are not physical members of it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange speaks about this in his book On Divine Revelation/De Revelatione. It is not a contradiction at all.
If we could see the Early Church had 90% of the papacy, it would seem more likely that God willed a 100% papacy than a 0% papacy.
Yeah you are getting to the essence of what I'm saying
This is actually a great way to put it.
Although I do agree with you I don’t really think majority is an accurate indicator of truth. Wasn’t the church pretty Unitarian at one point before the first council? (Could be wrong, still learning church history)
@@Wyckateer That’s a controversial subject and I’m not a scholar. It’s clearly the case that some of the terminology of the Trinity was a development (homosious, distinct hypostases), but the identification of the Messiah as YHWH is already there in the Enochic literature, and there is already the 2 power in Heaven doctrine among some Jews and not complete Unitarianism among all of them at the start of the Christian faith. St Justin the Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus Tertullian of Carthage all treat Christ as God yet distinct from the Father and there being only one True God. To the degree which they and many other figures were subordinationist such as those of the Alexandrian school is an interesting question as many others likely were.
Christ is King happy Easter to you and the family Eric
Thanks for your videos Mr. Ybarra, you’re one of the RC youtuber who convinced me(an evangelical) to return to the RC Church instead of becoming EO.
@Erik_Ybarra I totally sympathize with the Eastern Orthodox position and genuinely want to be convinced, but my hang up is regarding the language used toward the position and authority of the Bishop of Rome in the first 7 ecumenical councils.
The Eastern bishops accept the Bishop of Rome’s emissaries and letters read out. The Eastern bishops on record in an infallible council agree without exception what is decreed by the Bishop of Rome.
For me, in order to get to the Eastern Orthodox position it seems like there are a few routes:
1) The Eastern Bishops simply tolerate but silently disagree with the Roman Pontiff’s increasing power grab for universal jurisdiction. Keep in mind many of these Eastern Bishops are canonized as Saints. Does this not pose a problem regarding their sainthood, that they would behave so duplicitously?
2) The Eastern Bishops again simply tolerate the Pope’s power grab. But does that not then mean that the Eastern Bishops essentially took their own legs out from under themselves? In every other area they are so brilliant and calculating with regards to ecclesiology and theology. Would they be so careless as to not realize that their complicity in the matter would lead to the very thing they were striving to avoid - universal papal jurisdiction?
3) Again, assuming the Eastern Bishops were simply tolerating the Papal power grab, does that not implicate themselves in the matter? Would they, not be as much to blame as the Roman pontiff? For them not to strongly oppose heterodoxy in this instance when they vehemently oppose other forms of heterodoxy elsewhere doesn’t seem consistent. The Eastern Bishops were courageous and striving to preserve the faith. To simply tolerate the Roman Bishops’ power grab would make them cowards - and I don’t find that tenable.
I’m sure there is something I am missing, but as far as I can tell those are the options to contend with. At any rate, I truly hope and pray that the Lord helps us Christians, both East and West, to become humbler, gentler, and kinder and that the Holy Spirit finds desiring vessels in the East and West to work through to bring about the unity in his perfect timing. Thanks for all your work Erik.
The eastern bishops did not tolerate the gradual power. The photian council marks this once and for all
@@kianoghuz1033 Right. But the Photian Council is much later in 859.
I’m trying to understand the Photian Synod/Council’s position in light of earlier papal claims that were made in infallible councils (accepted by East and West as infallible) like the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Constantinople of 680 under Agatho’s pontificate.
@@joshchastain5 You won't understand the photian council because you are seeing it through a modern roman catholic lens. You won't understand as well why it was so easy for easterners to formulate canon 28 at Chalcedon for a primacy of honor for Constantinople. That's why context matters. If the papacy was something so divinely revealed, this canon would've never even made the final canons of which we have copies
You're my favourite catholic apologist, God bless.
Seraphim Hamilton made a really good video giving a foundational reasoning of Iconology without appealing to a Doctrinal Development, in the sense of innovation. The Principles of venerating the Prototype, God, through types, objects, was well demonstrated to be found in writer like Saint Ignatius the Godbearer and Saint Clement of Alexandria.
I think if we can do the same for the Papacy, which you have done here in this video. The foundational Principles exist, and the standard to apply these principals more broadly has been set by Icon Veneration being Dogmatic in Nicaea II.
Catholics would reject that the doctrinal development we espouse is an innovation. And I think Erick is also making that claim, but using the language of minimal versus maximal approach. The minimal approach shows that all the principles supporting the modern notion of the papacy were well demonstrated in the early church by the sources that both Catholics and Orthodox accept, even though not found explicitly or maximally expressed.
@@danielcarriere1958 I think we can make a maximal case, but we just do not NEED to do that.
For the algorithm. Enjoyed the longer version too. Nice refresher.
This is a great treatment, thank you for this Erick!
Great video. Thank you Eric for all your work. You are inspiration for my own apologetic work.
amazing work Erick
Greetings Eric,
I hope all is well.
There's a YT channel called Philosophy for All where the author converted to Catholicism. I thought that might interest you.
subbed
Hey bro have any thougts make a video rebuttal to mhfm
Erick what do you think about Catholics who seemingly want to move away from Vatican 1 language on the papacy?
They're trying to be heretical.
@@namapalsu2364 Trying to be Ecumenical*
How early does the evidence for the 3 minimal facts go though? Can we establish this from 2nd century / 100s sources alone? What about 3rd century / 200s sources?
for as long as Catholics and Orthodox agree
@@Erick_Ybarra I understand that in the context of the dispute between the two, but objectively speaking, from a historical standpoint, how early does evidence for the minimal 3 actually go? Especially the perpetuity of Peter's office in Rome through his successors? Btw, I think one can argue, conceptually speaking, that perpetuity of office is closely related to being divinely established, since God Himself is usually the only source of perpetual attributes like this, though I dunno if this can be shown with full certainty. Just a thought
@@AbsurdScandal Probably 5th century
👍🙏✝️🇻🇦
This is actually correct. That is, IF the rationale put forth to justify the claims of Nicaea 2 is sufficient to "prove" the claims made in the acts of N2 regarding the necessity of the veneration of icons as a condition of salvation, then it is arguable that, according to the same or similar rationale, the Church of Rome can justify Papal Supremacy. You've basically made the classical "modus ponens" argument.
But note the "if." With modus ponens, the conclusion is demonstrated only if the premises are actually true (as is the case with any argument).
You are correct that the claims regarding Papal Supremacy are of similar substance to those regarding icon veneration. The problem is that this "cuts both ways." In one direction, the person who accepts the claims regarding icon veneration as rational, if he has any desire to be consistent, would need to accept Papal Supremacy on similar grounds. However, for the rest of us with solid training in philosophy, history, theology, and a working familiarity with Scripture, we simply recognize both positions lack clear support from reason, history, or the Word of God.
Your approach to this is impressive and clever, and it might temporarily stun or confuse some Orthodox or even sway the less strident -- at least those who think that being consistent or rational actually matters. But rather than proving Papal Supremacy to be correct, you are really just showing that both it and mandated icon veneration are almost certainly errors. That was probably not your goal, but it is nonetheless an interesting move.
This argument in the video is strictly for an EO vs RC venue where certain sourcs are simply assumed to be unquestionably authoritative. As to whether the whole thing corresponds to reality is another question
@@Erick_Ybarra writes "As to whether the whole thing corresponds to reality is another question"
Seems like it would be the most important question, but I too like to play "what if" thought experiments. :)
@@philoalethia
It is a more important question but there were shorter objectives before getting to Mordor. I think that there is good evidence for the Papacy and I'd be open to having a dialogue with someone who thinks that the data is to be interpreted otherwise, as well as what the implications for that are.
@@Erick_Ybarra, a good place to start with that discussion might be simply to be clear about your terms -- something few apologists for Rome are willing to do.
For example, say/writing "I think there is good evidence for the Papacy" is a sensible statement considered narrowly. That is, there is good evidence that, over decades and centuries, the Church of Christ has generally considered the Bishop of Rome to have a special honor of representing the apostle Peter. However, what you actually mean is "I think there is good evidence for Papal Supremacy (and infallibility)," right? Basically only adherents to the Church of Rome agree with the latter. But apologists for Rome say the former intending the latter and, deliberately or not, effectively trick and confuse others. This rather sloppy conflation of ideas and terms is a habitual problem in this and related topics, especially when combined with the reading of contemporary ideas back into ancient texts and just plain bad reasoning.
@@philoalethia Yes, the claims of Vatican 1.
If the dogma (truth revealed by God) of papal supremacy is a development, could it not only be binding through the authority of a council, as was the case with every single dogma for the first several centuries? Otherwise, you are reduced to essentially defining something by using it as the definition, e.g., that the dogma of papal supremacy is a valid theological development is known because the pope who holds papal supremacy decreed it to be so.
I recommend getting “a brief introduction to the development or doctrine” by Giles and reading the first half of Erick’s book.
Also what you said after the e.g. is not Erick’s argument at all
@@jebbush2527 I'm aware he doesn't intend it to be his argument.
I‘m not following your parallel with icons. Icons have historically been used in the church and even before that as seen in the Dura Europos Synagogue. There was nothing minimal about using icons; it was simply a case of people being influenced by Muslim reasoning which was easily corrected by theological principles related to Christology and the sacramental understanding of matter. But even if it were historical, it was in no way minimal.
There are however minimals in the way Vatican I defines the papacy and alluding to honorific language and granted primacy due to political status and the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The honor does not equate to divinely mandated authority of universal jurisdiction. You can see honorific language used for other bishops too that today can be seen as “papal” sounding. It was a tradition. But I often see use quoting to support your argument that are clearly taken outside their cultural context and it doesn’t help just makes it seem deceptive…
The theological rationale of venerating icons as windows to heaven. That does not get historical reflection SIMPLY by the existence of icons. However, I would love to debate the issue of images in early Christianity as I think they were mostly discouraged if not shunned. The scholarship simply doesn't support your assertions. In any case, I do think a case can be made for icons.
As for the minimal facts, I listed them in this small audio but this audio is part of a larger lecture and the lecture is simply the introduction to a whole course. So I cover TONS more than simply honorific language and Peter's martyrdom.
@@Erick_Ybarra I‘m still not following the parallel. Icons were used in Solomon‘s Temple, and whether or not scholars think icons were discouraged by early Christians, it would be misguided to overlook their obvious historical use in the faith. Solomon‘s Temple was filled with icons and would outrage an iconoclastic Muslim for example. Moses‘ bronze serpent on a pole and all who looked at it after being bitten by snakes and were healed shows that imagery has been used and wasn’t just decoration but a bridge between the heavenly and earthly realms. That‘s why the issue of iconoclasm is inherently about its view on matter. My priest once said in a sermon “Matter matters” 😂
I didn‘t watch your larger lecture maybe I will later. But to stay on your icon parallel, Fr. Gabriel Wissa wrote an article on the early usage of icons and proof of it (outside of the obviousness of Scripture).
What texts have you read on the view of images in the early Church?
Get a copy of "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" (Ante-Nicene)....the Orthodox win Hands down according to the Apostolic Tradition ( And Scripture).
That was written by an Anglican on his way towards Anabaptist/Mennonite
@@Erick_Ybarra Yes, David Bercot was born and raised Jehovah's witness but then became an Evangelical . As an Evangelical he began to study the Apostolic/Ante-Nicene Fathers which led him to become an Anglican priest, eventually editing the Dictionary of Early Christian. I still have a collection of his teaching CDs and books. What led him to embrace the Anabaptist/Mennonites is that later focus on the moral teachings of the Early Church which the Roman/Orthodox/Anglicans did away with and changed many of the Early Churches beliefs on lifestyle. I myself was an Evangelical and became an high church Anglo-Catholic from the ancient British Church tradition. I'm also Franciscan because of moral teachings of the Gospels from a Franciscan perspective.
@@roddumlauf9241 you mean which Roman/Orthodox/Anglicans/Presbyterians/Baptists/Anabaptists/Mennonites/Methodists/Lutherans/Calvinists have done away with? Even today its hard to find a brethren community with the absolute commitments to certain beliefs of primitive Christians. Not every classical Mennonite community is even in conformity due to the lack of propitiation for the living and the dead in their Eucharist. It was all a testament to the need for doctrinal development and the need for a centralized magisterium such as existed in Jerusalem during the age of the Apostles when a dispute arose concerning the need for circumcision among the Gentiles.
@@Erick_Ybarra Erick, I don't know how Bercot squares becoming Anabaptist because so much of his doctrinal beliefs are in contradiction with the Mennonite/Anabaptist's neo-gnostic anti-sacramentalism perspectives. He tends to lean towards them because of moral issues. Example: Did you watch the debate between David Bercot and Dr. Peter Kreeft on "It's Just War" - Should Christians Fight?" Debate ?
ua-cam.com/video/K4xQaDDKY7k/v-deo.html
This is one of many issues on morality where the Church has strayed....the list goes on and one ( we're not talking about doctrines of the faith, but morals of the faith. Because we are saved by faith working in love, not faith alone.
I think Cyprian’s De Unitate Ecclesiae severely undermines Fact #2. Cyprian sees every bishop as a successor to St. Peter. He makes no mention of Rome.
i have 20 pages on Cyprian. I will be lecturing in the near future on it
@@Erick_Ybarra I look forward to hearing how you address his witness!
The mere fact that Apostle Paul had such a big influence on the Church and the Gospels, should be enough to dissuade you from the idea that any one apostle was supreme in any sense of the word. Why did Jesus use all those superfluous apostles and give them keys to the kingdom as well if he meant to have a direct earthly successor embodied with any one human?
Many different saints in many ages have held influence over the Church. And no, only St Peter was given the keys.
The history of the Church and how she was governed in the first millenium proves out the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Many disputes among eastern bishops were not resolved until they appealed to Rome for a decision. Anyone who has studied the least bit of law knows you don't appeal to someone who you don't believe has the authority and jurisdiction to render a binding decision to find resolution. The orthos quickly expose themselves as proto-protestants in their rejection of the papacy.
St Ireneaus wrote that all churches at his time knew and complied with the requirement of agreement with the Church at Rome. St Cyprian wrote that anyone who was not under the unity of the Peter could not think he "holds the faith" and "if he deserts the the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built"then he could not "be confident hat he is in the Church". It goes on and on.
When the Lord Jesus established His Church He gave the keys to Peter. All other Apostles also could execute a similar authority within their own regions they presided over (like Mark in Alexandria, or James in Jerusalem). But there still would be a requirement for a primary authority for resolution in disputes (something the Orthodox cannot demonstrate today, which also shows why the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a necessary installment).
Ah yes. The “Peter had powerful friends” objection.
This argument proves too much. If taken seriously, one wonders why Jesus chose twelve apostles instead of just one.
*The mere fact that Apostle Paul had such a big influence on the Church and the Gospels, should be enough to dissuade you from the idea that any one apostle was supreme in any sense of the word.*
And yet, Paul was not called Cephas (Rock), nor given the keys, nor made a promise to have the Church built upon him. You're making a category error but assuming that the one who can best articulate theology ought to have the highest authority.
*Why did Jesus use all those superfluous apostles and give them keys to the kingdom as well if he meant to have a direct earthly successor embodied with any one human?*
I think you've missed the point of the presentation. The debate is on *primacy* not *validity*. There is no dispute that Churches that were started by the other Apostles in various places are legitimate. The question is, which of them carries on the authority vested specifically and only to St. Peter.
This could seem a "W". But honestly, even in a catholic paschal's wager, Orthodoxy wins because Catholicism admits Orthodox sacraments and vincible knowledge of the papacy (St. Gregory Palamas, St. Sergius of Radonezh, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Alexander Nevsky). At this point we should strive towards a greater holy catholic orthodox church, where Christ is the monarch, not a man like earthly kingdoms.
Your knowledge of your ignorance makes you culpable. That is what St Paul says was the purpose of Torah.
In that case why do catholics venerate palamas and gregory of narek? When they were schismatic and florence clearly teaches there is no salvation flr schismatics. Cristal clear a contradiction
@@kianoghuz1033 A non sequiter but nonetheless an example of the pot calling the kettle black. You condemn the Latin Fathers and venerate them despite their profession of the Filioque and papal supremacy.
We admit orthodox sacraments as valid but not licit, a view that many orthodox have in regards to catholic sacraments
@@kianoghuz1033 You're also missing that figures like Palamas and Gregory of Narek are only locally venerated, and are not formally considered Catholic saints. This is like many Orthodox in Lebanon who visit the shrines of St Charbel, St Rafqa and St Nimetullah (who are Catholic saints). The difference is that these individuals are not formally schismatic in themselves, but instead were born into a schismatic Church. Moreover, Eastern Catholics that venerate Palamas, for example, cannot affirm a real EED. Lastly, Florence does teach that none outside the Catholic Church can be saved. However, modern Catholic ecclesiology upholds that there can be those united to the Catholic Church who are not physical members of it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange speaks about this in his book On Divine Revelation/De Revelatione. It is not a contradiction at all.