Erick Ybarra, an up-and-coming Roman Catholic apologist on the show is ready to have a go with your hosts here on the show with his choice of topic: the question of whether Popes had universal jurisdiction in the pre-schism period.
Erick Ybarra, an up-and-coming Roman Catholic apologist on the show is ready to have a go with your hosts here on the show with his choice of topic: the question of whether Popes had universal jurisdiction in the pre-schism period.
Thanks for the video. I recognize you from your debate w/ Matt Slick. Your cordiality in debate is much appreciated (even if it isn't met from your opponent, like a certain "apologist"). God bless!
I want to be Erick when I grow up
Just started listening orthodox guy sounds a bit like Seth rogan. I hope you guys debate pope leo 1 view of the papacy because I haven't found one orthodox talking about it on the net
I thought Leo had a plenitude of sayings in his letters that showed he believed he had papal authority.
This was great, thank you!👍
It's rather hilarious to watch Mr. Suaiden completely backtrack and contradict himself when he realizes that St. Pope Celestine's use of the "We" is the majestic plural often invoked by popes throughout the centuries to refer to themselves in conjunction with the Roman Church. His arguments completely go off the rails when Mr. Ybarra drives home the point that beyond the Bishop of Rome, there is no higher appeal.
Mr. Suaiden completely distorts the history of the Leo/Chalcedon/Canon 28 issue. There is nothing in the letter from the Council to Leo that suggests that they were giving the pope the authority to ratify, rather, they recognize his already existing authority as the "most holy and Apostolic See", containing "Apostolic prestige" of which "the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second" after Rome. These are the words used directly from Letter 98. They also recognize Leo as the head and as a spiritual father: "and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil [sic] for the children what is fitting". The council and emperors also submit themselves to the authority and judgement of Leo and laud their obedience and loyalty towards Rome: "For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness' judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement." Whether or not later bishops accept the decision of Leo is a different issue, as that would simply reveal their duplicitous, schismatic, and disobedient disposition. Whether someone heeds the authority of Rome or not has no bearing on the fact that Rome has that said authority. For example, whether I recognize Donald J. Trump or not as the president doesn't change the objective reality that he is the President of the United States. If Donald Trump orders that X be done but someone instead does Y, does not detract from his authority nor change the fact that he is the president. The argument from Mr. Suaiden that the pope was not listened to by some is irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur.
“…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8)
Mar Abdisho of Soba
(Memra 9; Risha 8)
14th century canonist
(from the Assyrian Church)
– The Catholicos Hovhannes VI of Sis (1203-1221) wrote to Pope Innocent III:
“The Church of Armenia acknowledging the primacy
both in shepherding and in teaching given by the lord to the most holy Church
of Rome became her beloved daughter.”
In a letter to Pope Pius IV, Etchmiadzin Catholicos-Patriarch Mikael I of Sebaste
(1567-1576), wrote:
“Anyone among us who does not profess the See of Peter
to be supreme and the Roman Pontiff to be head and father of the whole world and the heir to the keys, commits apostasy of the gospel, of Jerusalem, and of the Illuminator's See in Etchmiadzin.”
Source (with references) :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pmnbEpgP8hfxyIk64B9oczC_s4Fcjh51
See also this event in Coptic church history on the recognition of Rome supremacy :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1C9Eyf7MB3trtPas4fIy3OyaHa5BUlzIh
I also have a soft copy of the original manuscript of the letter sent to pope Clement VIII from coptic patriatch Gabriel VIII (from the Egyptian National Library and Archives)
I will tell you an incredible story, the former coptic patriarch Shenouda III taught nestorian teachings and denied theosis and many heresies. The holy synod didn't judge or isolate him because the majority of its members shared the Shenouda' heresies… hello !! no need for a Head ?? no supreme See ??? …. now, please tell me how to solve this problem in the coptic church …. the church in egypt is in chaos now ….. I gave you a realistic and practical example .. there must a HEAD to the church
Joseph HECHEMA
Maronite catholic apologist (Cairo -Egypt)
The rock or foundation was the revelation that Peter had , that Jesus is the Christ or anointed one.Jesus himself was the chief cornerstone and high priest, not Peter. How do you compare Peter to Francis?
The canons of Sardica were included in collections of the Latin, Syriac, Armenian and Greek churches.
The Greek text appears in the Synagoga L Titulorum of Patriarch John III Scholasticus [565-577] of Constantinople.
The Byzantine Council of Trullo, in 692, also accepted the canons of Sardica. [Mansi 11: 940].
Canon 2 of the council of Trullo accepted the canons of Sardica, which had confirmed the rights of bishops to appeal to Rome. [Mansi XI, 940].
The Romans frequently referred to the Sardican canons as canons of Nicea. [Ep. 43. PL 54: 821-3].
The canons of Nicea or Sardica, “which were established for the bishops of the whole world.” [Ep. 44. PL 54: 827-32].
St. Athanasius accepted these canons — [Athanasius, Apol. 37-50. PG 25: 311 sq. Cf. Mansi 3: 38-9].
Council of Sardica, Canon 3: Bishop Hosius said: “…if a bishop has had sentence pronounced against him in some case, and thinks he has good reason for the case to be considered, let us, if it pleases you, honor the memory of the holy apostle Peter: let letters be written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, by those who examined the case; if he judges that the case must be reconsidered, let it be reconsidered and let him appoint judges; if however he concludes that the case is not such that it ought to be rehashed, whatever he shall have decreed shall stand confirmed. Does this please everybody?” The council answered: “It does." Notice, the appeal to ST. PETER.
In 535 Pope Agapetus excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, by his OWN authority. In 536 this action was accepted in a council. Only the pope, by virtue of his succession from St. Peter has this authority, as "head of all the churches" (to quote Justinian).