In this video, we do a review of the debate Erick Ybarra had with Fr. Patrick Ramsey on @Pints With Aquinas concerning whether or not the Vatican I Papacy was present in the first millennium Church.

Mr. Ybarra’s states openly he is trying to prove the First Vatican Council’s Pastor Aeternus is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition and so would have been present in the first millennium Church.

[VIDEO CLIP] The question before us today is whether the doctrine of Papal Primacy as formulated at the Council of Vatican I is taught in Apostolic Tradition. Let me begin by defining the Council’s definition. The Council’s decree, Pastor Aeternus, which means The Eternal Shepherd (referring to Jesus Christ), gives a definition in 4 parts. These 4 parts describe (1) the institution, (2) permanence, (3) nature, and (4) infallible prerogative of Papal primacy. I will explain each of these briefly.

The Institution – The Council states that the Apostle Peter was given a primacy over the universal Church of God directly and immediately from Jesus Christ, the Eternal Shepherd.

The Permanence – In order to maintain the Church’s episcopal government as one and undivided, this universal primacy must be permanent as a perpetual principle of unity until the end of time, fixed in the bishopric of the Roman Church, according to the authoritative design of Jesus Christ.

The Nature – This primacy is universal and jurisdictional (or legally binding). This jurisdiction is immediate, direct, and ordinary over the whole Church of God. This is founded upon the fact that full power to govern the Church was directly given to Peter, with no intermediation. As such, Peter and the person of his successor is the supreme judge of all the faithful, and is free to exercise it at will.

Infallible Prerogative – Included in this primacy is the supreme power of teaching or magisterium. On certain conditions, the Pope can propose unchallengeable teaching that is protected from all error, and which must be adhered to with the assent of faith, the refusal of which would result in excommunication.

Erick does a decent job of summing up Pastor Aeternus but in so doing, he sets himself up for failure by revealing just how restrictive the framework is into which he must fit all of his material. He also leaves out that even many non-infallible papal statements are binding upon the faithful not simply through Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium chapter. 25 but also through encyclicals such as Pius XII’s Humani Generis chapter. 20. Mr. Ybarra, as we will discuss in the section on the Libellus of Hormisdas, is about to go against the grain of the official interpretation of Vatican I, that by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser. You see, when the First Vatican Council convened in 1870 and they drafted Pastor Aeternus, it was realized the document would, without a doubt, be construed in ways that were counter to its intent and in order to make sure no such confusion could or would take place, one bishop was specifically tasked by Pope Pius IX to produce a document clarifying exactly what is meant by Pastor Aeternus and this work was then ratified by the council en toto as the official interpretation of Vatican I’s fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. This work commonly known as “Bishop Gasser’s Relatio” but formally known among the council documents as “The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I” was translated into English with a very good commentary by Fr. James T. O’Conner, published by the Daughters of St. Paul in 1986, and possesses both a NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR and was published under the title “The Gift of Infallibility.” The translator and commentator, Fr. O’Conner, makes clear the importance of the Relatio stating, quote:

“Central to all the discussions on the meaning of papal infallibility as Vatican I defined it has been the official presentation, the Relatio, made by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser to the general congregation of bishops of Vatican I which took place on July 11, 1870.” The Gift of Infallibility, p. 1

Fr. O’Conner follows by saying, quote:

“So important is the Relatio of Gasser that it has itself become a theological source, cited in innumerable manuals and theological treatments and serving even in our own times as a key element in the renewed theological discussions about infallibility. Indeed the second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium [LOO-men GENTS-ee-oom]), cites Gasser’s Relatio four times in its important chapter on the magisterium or teaching office of Pope and bishops. Paragraph #25 has approximately only 55 lines of text and eight official footnotes. Thus, half of the citations in that key section of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium are to Gasser’s Relatio.” The Gift of Infallibility, p. 2

He then goes on to state, quote:

“The Deputation then entrusted to Gasser the task of relaying its recommendations and of giving an official explanation of the meaning of the emended Draft so that the bishops would know precisely what they were voting on when they came to approve or reject the proposed chapter four of Pastor Aeternus. It is in this aspect of his task that the importance of Gasser’s Relatio can be discerned. It is the key to proper interpretation of chapter four of Pastor Aeternus as it was finally approved since the bishops voted on it as explained by Gasser representing the Deputation de fide.” The Gift of Infallibility, p. 3

Needless to say, the Relatio is a big deal – it’s a very big deal. With that in mind, we come to our main point: Gasser’s Relatio gives three examples he believes are the strongest testimonies to the Church believing in the infallibility of the Pope: one example from the first millennium and two from the second millennium. From the first millennium, he chooses the libellus presented to the Byzantines at the Council of Constantinople 869 – not the original Libellus of Hormisdas from the early 6th century, but the altered version of the Libellus of Hormisdas used by Rome at Constantinople 869. He believes this is the strongest, albeit indirect, testimony in the first millennium. It must be stressed that Bishop Gasser does not consider these three examples or any of the classic proof texts for papal infallibility Mr. Ybarra brings up – quotations from saints such as Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, etc. as “direct” testimony but instead describes them as indirect testimonies. Fr. O’Conner, states, quote:

“The Patristic texts adduced by Bishop Gasser can hardly be taken as clear indications of their author’s belief in the infallibility of the Pope as Vatican Council I was going to define it. Gasser himself as indicated that the statements of the Fathers which he has brought forth fall under the category of “indirect testimony” (p. 27 above) – a testimony which gives evidence of a “rule of faith” which existed for the writers of the ancient Church. This rule of faith was essentially this: unity with the See of Peter was the most certain guarantee available that one was walking in the way of the true faith.” The Gift of Infallibility, p. 29

Gasser’s other two examples of indirect testimonies are the definitions at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and in 1439 at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Gasser also considers these only indirect testimony and not actual examples of papal infallibility despite arguing the definition from Florence draws directly from the letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Council of Constantinople III, a document Catholic pop-apologists erroneously argue claims infallibility. That letter, Gasser believes, does not make the cut for Ex Cathedra. In short, the man so well versed in theology he was hand picked by the pope to write the official interpretation of Pastor Aeternus does not think that any of Erick’s examples we will encounter in this video, whether the statement from St. Irenaeus, the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the Libellus of Hormisdas, the statements made at Lateran 649, the letter of Agatho to Constantinople III, what Pope Hadrian wrote to the Seventh ecumenical council, or any of the classic proof texts argued by Catholic apologists were examples of papal infallibility or even direct testimonies to it. In this sense, Gasser agrees with Orthodoxy and modern scholarship. For those who want to know more about Bishop Gasser’s Relatio, we recommend watching our video entitled “Pope St. Leo’s Tome, Proof of Papal Infallibility?” as we go over the Relatio extensively.

[VIDEO CLIP] What is Apostolic Tradition? – For our purposes, we may simply say that Apostolic Tradition is the faith delivered by the Apostles to the Church to be guarded and safely transmitted by their successors, the Bishops. The contents of Apostolic Tradition, for both Catholics and Orthodox, are contained in divine revelation as given in Scripture and Tradition. Therefore, if the Vatican Council’s definition of Papal Primacy is sufficiently implied in Scripture and Tradition, then this debate’s resolution is upheld and demonstrated. Since I am debating an Orthodox Christian, I will be focused mainly on Tradition since in many ways Tradition regulates the proper interpretation of the Scripture. Therefore, I will be looking primarily at Bishops, Church Fathers, and Holy Councils. Nevertheless, Scripture does have 3 main passages which show forth the basic idea of the Vatican’s definition.
Matthew 16:18-19 This is the famous passage where Christ is recorded as establishing Peter as the rock and foundation support for the edifice of the Church he has built, and gives to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which is the power of binding and loosing. A superstructure continually depends on its foundation for stability and strength. Ergo, Peter must have an enduring function in giving said strength to the universal Church as long as the Church requires its need.
Luke 22:31-32 Here Luke records how Christ singles out Peter to pray for his faith that it might not fail. Once Peter is strengthened by the prayer of Christ, he is to strengthen the faith of his brethren. This signifies a Christo-Petrine dynamic where Christ fortifies His Church through the faith of Peter, and serves as a picture utilized by the fathers to describe the Roman See vis-à-vis the universal Church.
John 21:15-17 Christ gives to Peter the three-fold commission to shepherd and pastor the universal flock. This is seen in the command, “Feed My Sheep.” To feed sheep is a metaphor for governing the Disciples of Christ towards eternal salvation.

Mr. Ybarra fails to mention that the exegesis on these verses singles out the bishop of Rome just as often as it identify these verses with the foundation of the episcopate as Peter was the archetype of all bishops in the patristic mind. It is only with the sinking of the western side of the Empire that Rome, in an effort to bolster its relevance, began to invest heavily in the topic of St. Peter being present in Rome and Rome alone. This is demonstrated – repeatedly – in the Book “The Invention of Peter” by George Democopoulos. Further, on our blog, we have compiled a florilegium, or list of patristic quotations, demonstrating that the Church Fathers considered all bishops to be Peter, many of them citing the very verses Erick Ybarra uses to support his vision of the Papacy. This florilegium will be linked in the video description. It should not be denied that the papacy played a significant part in the early Church and that the east often spoke of Rome in glowing terms, but to prove pastor Aeternus, one needs more than just glowing terms.

[VIDEO CLIP] Now, for some traditional evidences from the Church’s tradition: In the 2nd century, we read from Irenaeus of Lyons that the Apostolic Tradition as held by the Roman See is a universal norm unto which all Churches must agree. This means Rome’s perspective was supremely credible. Contemporary to Irenaeus is Pope Victor who attempted to enforce the bind of excommunication from the “common union” of Christ’s body upon the churches of Asia. This shows a sense of legal responsibility (i.e. jurisdiction) over all.

The understanding of that text put forward by Mr. Ybarra during the recent debate has four issues with it. The text he is alluding to states, quote:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 3

The first issue is the Latin used by St. Irenaeus is not clear. “Convenire” [kon-ve-neer-ay] almost always means simply “to arrive” or “to convene” and not “to agree with” so it would be odd to use the term to mean “agree with,” especially considering all of the other words in Latin that specifically denote agreement such as consentire, adsentior, congruere, or even oboedire among many others. This is one reason why there has been tremendous debate for the better part of two centuries now on what the proper translation even is.

The second issue is that the quotation provided comes from the work “Against Heresies” and when one reads the following several pages, they will automatically realize the rule of thumb St. Irenaeus sets up is not that one must agree with Rome per se, but that correct dogma is preserved in sees founded by apostles as any bishopric set up by apostles has the deposit of faith. Shortly after giving the above quotation, St. Irenaeus writes, quote:

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 4:1

As the viewer can see, St. Irenaeus simply singles out Rome as the most prominent of these.

“Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch 10:2

Notice St. Irenaeus does not state that they “cannot” change doctrine, but that they “will not” change doctrine. He can say this because he considers any see established by an apostle to be an infallible see. So with this in mind, if “convenire” actually does mean “to agree with,” St. Irenaeus must have been speaking of churches that do not have an apostolic foundation because, in his mind, apostolic churches could not disagree simply by the fact they had all received their teachings from the apostles.

The third issue, and this is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book 5, chapters 23 and 24, is that this saint openly disagreed with and admonished the Pope when he excommunicated the Quatrodecimans, a group who celebrated Easter on the date of Passover. The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea actually records the event as well as the letter of St. Irenaeus admonishing Pope Victor and other bishops concerning breaking communion with the Quatrodecimans. In short, Eusebius states that St. Irenaeus and other bishops admonish Pope Victor and that they, quote “live in peace” with the Quatrodecimans, indicated that St. Irenaeus did not follow the lead of Pope St. Victor.

Further, Pope Victor himself is actually following the lead of various synods, not only one in Rome, but also ones in Gaul, the Holy Land, the Black Sea, and Mesopotamia that were called to discuss the issue so he is only acting because he feels he is backed by those synods. It should be noted that Eusebius indicates Pope Victor actually did excommunicate the Quatrodecimans by letter, quote:

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.” Eusebius, Book 5, Ch. 23:9

But then, Victor is forced to reverse his decision because he was rebuked by so many bishops, who were led by none other than St. Irenaeus who writes a long letter regarding the Apostolic nature of celebrating Eastern on the 14th of Nisan. So no, St. Irenaeus does not think all churches need to agree with Rome or else he would have supported the excommunication of those churches celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan as it did not accord with Roman customs.

The fourth issue is that it depends on the idea that only Pope Victor could excommunicate other bishops or, that even if any bishop could excommunicate others, then only Pope Victor could force other bishops to fall in line with the excommunications he issued. Defenders of this view will argue that because no one objected by saying the Pope did not have the right to excommunicate those churches that it means they accepted the right the pope could do that and, believe it or not, those Catholic apologists are correct, no one objected to Pope Victor’s right to excommunicate whomever he wanted. But what those apologists fail to mention is there is no indication Pope Victor thought his excommunication was binding on those outside of his own diocese. In fact, despite saying the excommunications were sent out, Eusebius never says that Victor cut them off from the common communion of the Church, but that he, quote, “attempted to.” Considering Victor already sent the letters of excommunication, he was not simply threatening but actually notifying that them that communion had already been broken. The reason is because no one thought his excommunication was binding outside of his diocese.

This last piece is very hard for Catholics to accept because they look back into the past using a Vatican I lens but if we remove that lens and simply present the history in a bare form, we find that Rome regularly held communion with sees which were still in communion with other sees which had been excommunicated by Rome. The Meletian Schism is a good example of this because Rome excommunicated St. Meletius of Antioch but stayed in communion with the Three Cappadocians, all of whom were in communion with St. Meletius. We see it again with Acacius of Bereoa after the first council of Ephesus – he maintained communion with Rome, Ephesus, and Alexandria on the one hand but on the other hand, he also stayed in communion with Antioch despite the schism of 431-433. We even see it with St. Cyprian of Carthage who died out of communion with Rome but was held as a saint by the rest of the Church who maintained communion with him. So there is no indication that the excommunication was to be upheld by others upon pain of excommunication but rather that even papal excommunications were considered local – if that is not the case, then the above situations cannot be reconciled with reality.

Furthermore, we see that bishops, regardless of where they were, could excommunicate whomever they wanted – St. Cyprian of Carthage again being an example as he and his synod refused communion with Basilides and Martial, two Spanish bishops who had been reinstated by Rome after they had lapsed under persecution. The entire event is recorded in letter 67 of St. Cyprian and we will discuss it more later. Other examples were during the fifth ecumenical council when the North African bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius for doing what they perceived as backtracking on Chalcedon and the fifth council itself suspended Pope Vigilius from office for defending what were obviously Nestorian writings. In short, Pope Victor threatening to excommunicate the Quatrodecimans in Asia Minor does not prove universal jurisdiction because bishops were regularly excommunicating other bishops and groups outside of their territory. We even have a list of occurrences like this in our series on St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus, found on our blog But never mind that, Mr. Ybarra cannot let facts gets in the way of Vatican I because his motto might as well be “Rome at all costs.”

Most interesting of all, we even have the example of Pope St. Gelasius, one of those Popes whom Erick Ybarra considers some sort of Vatican I prototype. Pope St. Gelasius, in a letter to a certain Faustus explains how his predecessor, Pope Felix, could excommunicate Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople and it does not support Mr. Ybarra’s contention. Pope Gelasius states, quote:

“[…] who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one person, I am surprised if he does not realise his own ignorance himself. Yes, does he not realise that Acacius was condemned according to the formula of the synod of Chalcedon? Does he not know, or is he pretending not to know? By that formula particularly it is agreed that the instigators of Acacius’ error were condemned by a majority vote of bishops just as a clear consideration of events shows to have been done and is being done in the case of every single heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion, and that my predecessor was appointed executor of the old ordinance, not the instigator of a new regulation. It is permissible not only for an apostolic leader but for every pontiff to separate from catholic communion whomsoever they like and whatever place they like, according to the rule of the very heresy that has previously been condemned.” Pope St. Gelasius, Letter 10 translation by Neil and Allen

Gelasius states that any bishop could have excommunicated Acacius, or any heretic, because, according to St. Gelasisus, Bl. Acacius was in violation of previous anathemas. In the case of Pope Victor, numerous councils had decided upon the date of Easter and Victor was merely enforcing it.

But Pope St. Gelasius denies it was something particular to Rome and in fact uses the same term for the condemnation of Acacius by the pope or by any other bishop. It should be noted that in the same letter, Gelasius also locates Chalcedon’s authority not so much in Rome ratifying it, but in its general ratification by the episcopate, reflecting the Orthodox understanding of conciliarity. So we can see from this Gelasius, a pope whom Mr. Ybarra has claimed is an exemplar of papal thinking, does not share Mr. Ybarra’s misunderstanding of history. Instead, Pope St. Gelasius sees Felix III as really doing nothing any other bishop could not also do.

[VIDEO CLIP] In the 3rd century, Pope Stephen appealed to the Matthean text situating Peter and his successors as the rock upon which the Church is built in order to legitimize his enforcement of the Roman policy on baptism in North Africa. The 5th century Vincent de Lerins, a Saint cherished by both Catholics and Orthodox, corroborates that not only was Stephen correct in policy but also in authoritative procedure over his interlocutors (That is from the 6th chapter of his Commonitorium).

The comments by Pope St. Stephen are known only via St. Firmillian and even within that context, in St. Stephen’s boast it is not so much about Petrine authority, but rather that Stephen has an apostolic throne and is therefore right while St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, does not have an apostolic throne and is therefore wrong. This goes back to the point about St. Irenaeus: in the mind of the early patristics, apostolic churches cannot falter and so Stephen is not emphasizing Peter but emphasizing that he possesses the authority that comes with an apostolic lineage – this is why, 30 years prior to the tone deaf policy of Pope Victor at the end of the 2nd century, Pope Anicetus backed down on the topic of the Quatrodecimans when confronted with the practice of another Apostolic See in the person of St. Polycarp.

It should also be noted that St. Stephen’s practices were eventually rejected by the Church because even though it was later whitewashed, St. Cyprian, in his 72nd and 73rd epistles quotes Pope St. Stephen as stating even Marcionites and various other Gnostic sects were not to be received by baptism but only by laying on of hands and this was repeatedly rejected by the Church.

[VIDEO CLIP] Concerning the event with Pope Victor, the late Orthodox Archbishop and theologian Stylianos Harkianikis states the following: “It was at this point (St. Victor’s excommunication of Asia) that the differentiation between the Catholic Church of the West from that of the East began.” (Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, 146). Orthodox theologian Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck in his book His Broken Body states the following: “One could therefore argue that the Great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen and remained underground until the 9th century” (155-56). Clearly, therefore, Victor and Stephen, both Saints in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, gave the impression of a primacy of universal jurisdiction.

But here, Mr. Ybarra is misunderstanding the words of these two writers, neither of whom are theologians per the Orthodox understanding of the term. They are not saying that anything even approaching Vatican I was present in the above-described events, they are just indicating that a growing intolerance for a plurality of practices, the type of behavior that led to the Schism, was beginning to show itself very early on and that is correct – it was a carryover from pagan Rome that the inhabitants of Rome expected others to act, think, eat, drink, and walk like they did.

[VIDEO CLIP] In the 4th century, Eastern provincial councils were overturned by annulments enacted by the authority of the Roman court, and the Council of Sardica (343) insisted that such was appropriate since the Roman See was, as the See of Peter, the head of all the Bishops in the East and the West. Athanasius the Great was present and subscribed to its decrees. This clearly shows the legal authority of Rome’s disciplinary and doctrinal court in light of a continued possession of Peter’s primacy.”

First, Mr. Ybarra appears to be just straight out lying because he has been corrected on this repeatedly, one of them at minute mark 48 of our first video, which we direct the listener to for a fuller discussion on this. In the case he is referring to, it has been pointed out to him repeatedly that Rome did not overturn the verdicts but that the Arian side approached the Pope asking for a mutually agreed upon arbitration between themselves and St. Athanasius, to which the saint agreed. The Arians then did not show up on the agreed upon date so they forfeited their case thus automatically restoring St. Athanasius and his friends to their sees. This is not controversial, it is in the actual letter Pope Julius wrote to the Arians and in the writings of St. Athanasius when he records the event. Likewise, Socrates records it as the Council of Sardica itself restoring St. Athanasius and company to their sees.

Second, the canons he is referring, those of the Council of Sardica, do not state Rome can overturn councils, they simply state that if a cleric is deposed, they may appeal to the Pope and the Pope will act a review court deciding whether or not the case can be heard by an appeals court. The canons then stipulate that the appeals court is not Rome, but rather the province in the territory adjacent to the province of the deposed cleric. The most the Pope can do after that is send a small number of clerics to join the appeals court, no more. Rome is not the appeals court, it is what the US legal system refers to as a “review court.” This is covered in our first video and, God willing, we will eventually do a video on the Council of Sardica, it’s canons, and how the situation with St. Athanasius that caused it.

[VIDEO CLIP] That this primacy was held superior to even councils is clear from the testimony of Pope Innocent I who wrote the following in 416: “…whatever is done, even if it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened.”

That is called synodality. We encourage the readers to view the Apostolic canon 34 stating that the synodal head is to do nothing without the synod and the synod is to do nothing without the synodal head so no, this does not support his contention. You will notice that Mr. Ybarra seems to read statements like the above to mean that because nothing can be done without the synodal head, therefore, the synodal head can do as he pleases. This is a false understanding of ecclesiology but it has to be maintained if you are trying to squeeze Vatican I into history, otherwise, you will just be stuck with repeated examples of synodality.

[VIDEO CLIP] Clear evidence comes from the presbyter Philip who stated at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) that Christ divinely singled out Peter as the rock, foundation, bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, head of the Apostles, and the whole Church who “today and forever lives and judges in his successors.” This was read aloud in both Latin and Greek, and was inscribed into the official Acts.

Because Mr. Ybarra has probably not read the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, he does not realize the words of the presbyter Philip were the beginning of a speech about four times the size of the small quotation Mr. Ybarra provided. This is what happens when one studies patristics purely, or even largely from quote mines – they do not understand the actual context of what is being said. The full quotation is found on page 378 of Fr. Richard Price’s commentary and translation entitled “The Council of Ephesus of 431,”. In the full speech, Philip the Presbyter, who is in the acting role as the official representative of the Pope, after explaining that the Emperors had called the council, that the ten-day allotment of time provided by Pope St. Celestine had long run out, that Nestorius had refused to follow the summons, and that the council had excommunicated Nestorius, etc. Philip then ratifies the decision of the council on behalf of Pope St. Celestine. Again, this is simply synodality, nothing more and there is a very good reason Catholic apologists truncate the quotation: the rest of it disallows the interpretation they desire.

[VIDEO CLIP] When Emperor Theodosius II convened the Council of Ephesus (449), Flavian of Constantinople appealed over its court to the throne of Peter in order to annul its decrees. This is perhaps the clearest instance of a Saint appealing to the Sardican privilege of Rome in order to check the decrees of an Ecumenical Council.

Pope St. Leo annulling the Robber Synod was apparently not enough to dismantle the depositions because the first session of the Council of Chalcedon proceeded to canonically dismantled Ephesus 449 and then, later on in the council, various depositions carried out by Dioscorus were overturned. In fact, those depositions carried out by Dioscorus are yet another example of a bishop excommunicating those outside of not just his diocese, but also his patriarchate much like Pope Victor. As a side note, Leo recognized Dioscorus’ right to depose and excommunicate bishops outside of his see when Leo almost immediately went into communion with Maximus of Antioch, Dioscorus’ handpicked replacement for the deposed Domnus of Antioch. Per the Sardican canons, all Leo could do was pause the deposition and decide whether or not it could go to a real trial somewhere else – that’s it. The pertinent canons are 3, 4, 5, and 9 of Sardica and the meanings are beyond clear.

In addition, Mr. Ybarra, in the debate and then later in the debate review, asserts that everyone understood Ephesus II as an ecumenical council. This is patently false and indicates either that Mr. Ybarra does not know what he is talking about or is simply being untruthful to Fr. Patrick and the audience in order to support his neo-papal view that a pope is an entity separate and above an ecumenical council. For one, he is using the term “ecumenical council” ambiguously. At this time in Church history, “ecumenical” simply referred to the fact the emperor was bank rolling the event and that its decrees would be signed into law, it did not refer specifically to an actually binding, dogmatic council as it does in the Catholic Church in today. Further, the legate of the Pope of Rome, Dn. Hilarius, rejected Ephesus II on the spot before leaving the council during a riot. The lawful Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, who was nearly beaten to death at said council, and the see of Antioch, under Patriarch Domnus also rejected it so it did not match the criteria for an ecumenical council as it initially had only the signatures of two of the five patriarchates.

This is important because at the seventh ecumenical council in 787, the argument as to why the iconoclast council of Hieria held in 754 was not an ecumenical council was that it was signed neither by Rome, nor Alexandria, nor Antioch, nor Jerusalem. This was not simply a later view as the historian Socrates, dying in 439, 10 years prior to Ephesus II has his famous statement, usually taken entirely out of context, that nothing is to be decided without the bishop of Rome agreeing to it – if you follow a collegial and conciliar model, you need the bishop of Rome present just as you need the other patriarchs present so very early on, the standards were set that, at least within normal circumstances, for example the pope or patriarch was not a heretic, you had to have the Pope and other patriarchs present and in agreement. This gets into the Roman concept of auctoritas in which one acts as a gate keeper, a witness, an affirmer, or ratifier of the acts of others. One with auctorias could grant or withhold their approval and in so doing stop a process from occurring but could not go out and make something happen on their own initiative. It is similar to a prime minister in a parliamentary system. In the near future, we will do a video on the topic of auctoritas, but in the meantime, we have a short articles on our blog entitled “On Auctoritas.”

[VIDEO CLIP] In the 3rd session of the Council of Chalcedon, the official sentence of excommunication against Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, states that Pope Leo, through the Council “together with the thrice blessed and all glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped [Dioscorus] of his episcopate…” Clearly, the Matthean text which invested Peter with a universal primacy of jurisdiction is here understood to be living and active in the enforced authority of his successor, Leo the Great.

It is ironic that even though Mr. Ybarra points out the deposition came, quote, “through the council,” his words, not ours; he still mistakes it for an activity of universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction when it is clearly synodal. It is the same case with Philip the Presbyter at Ephesus: the council votes, then the synodal head casts his vote ratifying the decision and the case is closed – it is essentially a parliamentary system. The problems is that Mr. Ybarra has a skewed view of synodality due to spending so much time trying to convince himself it can exist under an autocratic universal bishop. This becomes exceptionally clear in the debate review when Mr. Ybarra repeats the analogy from the Catholic Encyclopedia about each military officer having full and immediate jurisdiction over the troops under him but the higher officers are able to override the lower officers. Erick then claims this does not result in each diocese having two ordinary bishops – but it does because Fr. Patrick immediately asks whether a priest is to obey his local bishop or the pope if their two give conflicting orders. Erick is caught off guard and stumbles through an attempted answer ending it by essentially saying he can’t say why and blames it on lack of time. The reality, though is in the Catholic system, there really is only one ordinary bishop for each diocese – the Pope, and all other bishops are simply his auxiliaries within what would seem like their own diocese.

[VIDEO CLIP] In Sermon 51, Leo states that of all things which are petitioned in the Church, “only that should be ratified in heaven which had been settled by the judgment of Peter [i.e. Rome’s judgment].” This is why Leo felt qualified to annul the 28th canon of Chalcedon “by the authority of Peter” (Letter 105). Though there are many pastors and bishops in the universal Church, says Leo in Letter 14, “all should converge toward Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its head.”, i.e. the Apostolic See of Rome.

The topic of canon 28 of Chalcedon comes up often and Leo would have been qualified to annul it had Rome not already accepted the 3th canon of Constantinople, which is what the 28th of Chalcedon repeats. In fact, we know Rome accepted it because of what the head papal legate, Paschasinus, points out in this exchange in the Acts of Chalcedon, quote:

“During the reading the most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Flavian went in as if already condemned. There is a blatant case of corrupt prosecution. Why was Flavian not seated in his proper place? Why was the bishop of Constantinople put in fifth place?’ Paschasinus the most devout bishop said: ‘Look, in accordance with the will of God we give first place to the lord Anatolius. But they put the blessed Flavian fifth.’ Diogenes the most devout bishop of the church of Cyzicus said: ‘Because you know the canons.’”

There is only one canon Bishop Paschasinus could refer to and that is the 3th of Constantinople I which states that Constantinople being new Rome, ranks after Rome. As for why the eastern bishops, namely Anatolius agrees to withdraw it, he sees Leo is being unreasonable and realizes a more prudent path is to just continue doing what they had been doing since 381. This is why canon 28 never died – the East realized the West had accepted it and tried to renege on it.

[VIDEO CLIP] In the 6th century, a 30-year schism between Rome and the Eastern Churches was healed by a universal subscription to a Formula put down by Pope Hormisdas in 519. In that Formula, it was clearly annunciated that the divine promise of our Lord to protect His Church was through the instrumentality of preserving Peter’s faith in the teaching ministry of the Apostolic See of Rome, which is the rock and solidity of the whole Christian religion. Countless Bishops of both East and West signed and returned into full communion with the Church. Concerning this Formula, the late and great Orthodox theologian Fr. Alexander Schmemann, who was a historian in his own rite, states: “… characteristic of this eternal compromise with Rome was the signing of the formula of Pope Hormisdas by the Eastern bishops in 519, ending the thirty-year schism between Rome and Constantinople. The whole essence of the papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed than in this document, which was imposed upon the Eastern bishops” (The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, 240).

Except only the Patriarchate of Constantinople signed it. The other patriarchates wrote their own professions of faith and if one reads the letter of Pope St. Hormisdas to Patriarch Epiphanios of Constantinople, he gives the requirements for the contents of those professions and never once does anything about Rome or Peter come up. In fact, from the surviving libelli we have, Peter is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Further, the Libellus only lends itself to an understanding of Vatican I if you are reading it with the definitions and baggage of those terms dictated by Vatican I.

[VIDEO CLIP] At the Council of Lateran (649), the Eastern Bishop Stephen of Dor, a unique disciple of Sophronius of Jerusalem, described how he and Sophronius were of the mind that they must appeal to the Roman See “that rules and presides over all others (I mean your sovereign and supreme see), in quest of healing for the wound inflicted. It has been accustomed to perform this authoritatively from the first and from of old, on the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ … but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole catholic church. As the text runs, ‘Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep’. And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakeable faith in our Lord, [he was deemed worthy] to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sakes with power and priestly authority over them all.” (Price, Acts of the Council of Lateran, 143-44). Here there is an unmistakable usage of the three most famous Petrine texts of the New Testament to prove the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.

First, terms like “rule,” “preside,” and “supreme” do not qualify the extent and prerogatives, or content of said rule and presidency. For example, patriarchs or metropolitans are said to “preside” over their synods. Likewise, they are the highest, or “supreme” leader within such a synod. Only the most clueless doubt Rome held the highest position in the first millennium Church so arguing for that point is attacking a strawman.

Second, Stephen’s letter is in Greek and as we see later on in the quotation, he is drawing a parallel between the words of Christ to Peter in John 21:16 and the role of Pope Martin. This means Stephen’s original Greek used the verb “ποιμαίνω,” [POI-mah-no] which though occasionally translated “rule” actually tends towards the meaning “tend” or “shepherd”, but even in that case, terms like “shepherd,” “rule,” “preside,” and “supreme” have to be radically repurposed and redefined to entail the type of infallible autocracy Vatican I accorded to the Roman Pontiff.

What is interesting is how Stephen seemingly departs from the typical patristic exegesis of Matt. 16:18 and 18:18 when he implies the keys were not given to the other apostles but only to Peter. Then again, if you recall that in the patristic mind Peter is the archetype of all bishops, it makes sense why he says this. This is exceptional considering that until the scholastics, the power of the keys, even in Roman Catholic theology, was simply the power to forgive sins. Further, in contravention to Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, he states Rome’s capabilities are based on both its apostolic and canonical situation while Pastor Aeternus specifically denies the canons or councils have given anything to Rome. 

Third, what Mr. Ybarra leaves out is the translator of the Acts of Lateran that he is quoting from, the Catholic priest and patristics scholar Fr. Richard Price, does not agree with the historical revisionism of Mr. Ybarra. In fact, concerning the very quotation Mr. Ybarra just brought up, Fr. Prices writes, quote:

“This expresses the papalist theory that St Peter had unique authority among the apostles and that his role was fully and uniquely inherited by the popes of Rome. This theory was accepted in the East to the extent that it recognized that the popes had a special responsibility to stand up for the truth, but not in the sense that they were believed to possess a charism of truth in virtue of which their rulings were to be accepted without question or examination.” Price, “Acts of Lateran 649”, pg. 144, ft. 47

In fact, in the introduction, had Mr. Ybarra actually read, Fr. Price lays it out writing, quote:

“The involvement of successive popes in the controversy reflected the position of the Roman church as leader of the universal church and the special prestige of Rome in matters of doctrine articulated in ideas of papal primacy. Peter’s confession of faith at Matthew 16:18–19 was the basis for the idea that the popes had a special authority in matters of doctrine and teaching because they had gained their understanding through St Peter directly from Christ. This primatial position was acknowledged throughout the eastern and western churches […] However, this did not mean that in the east papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine were regarded as automatically definitive and necessitating acceptance.” Price, “Acts of Lateran” p. 40-41

But again, if, like Mr. Ybarra, your lens is “Rome at all costs,” nothing should get in the way of the narrative, especially not the truth.

[VIDEO CLIP] Maximus the Confessor was both present and subscribed to all the utterances in this Council. Maximus too, however, unambiguously held that the Roman see held “supreme dominion, authority, and power over all of God’s churches throughout the world to bind and loose.” (Opscula 12; translation from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in his book Orthodox Christianity, vol. 1, p. 110)

Mr. Ybarra, true to himself, truncates the quotation in order to hide the context. Here is the rest of the quotation:

“[…] instead of satisfying or entreating the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of Rome, that is, the Apostolic throne, which is from the incarnate Son Himself and which, in accordance with the holy canons and the definitions of faith, received from all the holy councils universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God which are in the whole world.”

Notice the full quotation states it is from “canons” and “definitions of faith” and that goes against Vatican I, which specifically denies Rome has received anything from an ecumenical council but instead that it was all given immediately and directly by Christ to St. Peter. But St. Maximus is saying something different, he is saying that the apostolic throne is from the Incarnate Son of God Himself, while the prerogatives are given canonically.

But what about the phrase “universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God which are in the whole world” First, “supreme” simply means “highest,” while Mr. Ybarra is trying to argue it means something along the lines of “absolute.” St. Maximus is referring to the fact that the Pope, as archbishop of the world, has the position, in normal circumstances, in other words, the pope is not a heretic, of confirming the acts of ecumenical councils as he was the synodal head just as Constantinople is now. That is just a part of synodality, nothing special. Further, that the pope is able to reopen the cases of deposed clerics when appealed to and send them to retrial per the canons of Sardica. Aside from those canons, there are no other canons St. Maximus could possibly be referring to. If there are, please inform us and we will gladly stand corrected. The terms Mr. Ybarra would need to provide to prove his argument are ones like “absolute,” “complete,” “total,” and “without the consent of the Church,” but we do not find those terms in the first millennium applied to papal jurisdiction – where we do find them in in 1871 in Pastor Aeternus, a council that proposed something so radically new it had to use terms not used in the first millennium to express it.

[VIDEO CLIP] In the same 7th century, Pope Martin delegated his Petrine authority to John, a Bishop in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, to clean up Church offices that were seized by heretics in the East. The Pope states that John must “correct the things which are wanting, and appoint Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in every city of those which are subject to the See both of Jerusalem and of Antioch; we charge you to do this in every way, in virtue of the Apostolic authority which was given us by the Lord in the person of most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles; on account of the necessities of our time, and the pressure of the nations” (Mansi X.806; translation from Thomas William Allies, The See of Peter, 120). Very clear testimony to jurisdiction being exerted in the East by virtue of the investments given to Peter immediately by Christ by a Martyr-Pope highly venerated by the Orthodox Church.

For one, the Latin does not say “we charge you” but “we exhort you” so he is not ordering Bishop John to do it but essentially pleading with him. We also never actually hear what happens with Bishop John because aside from this one letter, he is unknown to history and there is no indication he even listened to the exhortation. Having said that, this would lend itself more so to Mr. Ybarra’s argument if the hierarchy in the area were actually Orthodox when Pope St. Martin did this, but they were not, they had largely gone heretical. At this point in time, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was vacant and the Patriarch of Antioch was hiding in Constantinople so it was really a ‘wild west’ situation in which no one was really in charge and that is why the actions of Pope St. Martin trying to set up an Orthodox hierarchy in heretical lands is really no different than the current practice of Orthodox synods establishing hierarchies of Orthodox bishops in Roman Catholic or Protestant lands. It is no different and is built upon the same principle Popes Theodore and Martin were operating on: restoring Orthodox clergy to an area embroiled in heresy. Case in point, we have no problem installing a bishop in New York despite the fact Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran bishops reside there because we consider them persona non grata and an Orthodox bishop is established to care for those Orthodox Christians residing there. For more information on this, we would again recommend the article we wrote entitled “Does Lateran 649 Prove Papal Infallibility?”

[VIDEO CLIP] At the Council of Constantinople (681), Pope Agatho’s letter was read aloud in Greek and Latin and was approved by the Greeks as the voice of Peter. In that letter, Agatho stated that the Roman Church “had never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things… “. He goes on to say that the teaching of Rome “remains undefiled according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself” and then cites Christ’s promise in Luke 22:31-32. The late Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote: “Agatho quotes the words of Christ to Peter… in favor of Papal infallibility, anticipating, as it were, the Vatican decision of 1870

Sounds impressive…until we read the acts of the sixth council. What Mr. Ybarra leaves out is that the letter in which these claims are made is repeatedly and consistently described as quote, “a suggestion” by the very papal legates, the Emperor, and the Council Fathers. That’s right, “a suggestion” submitted to the council. Further, the letter of St. Agatho is not referred to as “dogmatic” or “doctrinal” until after the council ratified it. Even further, in the letter the council writes to the Pope stating that their own doctrinal statement, which they were sending to him to ratify, was, quote, “infallible.” Here is the full quotation:

“And we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible; not ‘removing the ancient landmarks, as it is written (God forbid!), but remaining steadfast in the testimonies and authority of the holy and approved fathers […]” Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho NPNF Vol. XIV

Let us not forget that the Church Fathers saw the Empire as divinely established, in fact, following St. Paul, they saw all governments as divinely established, for good or for bad – and so it should come as no surprise when Pope St. Agatho told the Emperor that the Emperor spoke ex cathedra. He states, quote:

“[…] for these decrees the Holy Spirit by his grace dictated to the tongue of the imperial pen […].”

So following Mr. Ybarra’s proof-texting ways, we have to admit that we have a divinely established institution, that is the Empire, and that God can speak infallibly through its head, the emperor. So the Emperor can speak ex cathedra, right? Of course not, but this shows the level of flattery. One would think it was purely brown-nosing were it not part of the etiquette of the time.

But back to the idea of Pope St. Agatho’s letter to the Council as merely a “suggestion.” Imagine that – Pope Francis, after drinks with Pachamama and company, issues his Ex Cathedra statement “De Missa Scurrarum” or “On the Clown Mass,” which mandates that all priests must dress as Bozo the Clown to celebrate the mysteries. But the bishops, after receiving it solemnly – but dressed as bishops, not as clowns, refer to it as “a suggestion” and do not receive it as a binding dogmatic statement. It would almost be as if De Missa Scurrarum was not even an encyclical, let alone ex cathedra, but was merely a suggestion submitted to the council for approval.

One might argue that the letter of Pope St. Agatho was not ex cathedra. In fact, they might try to say that it was not even an encyclical, which, of course, would also demand assent, but one might try to argue that when the council ratified the statements within it concerning Rome’s spotless past and ability to speak infallibly, these teachings were accepted as de fide by the Council. But if that were the case, why was the Council’s next act to condemn a pope for heresy if they had just accepted a document they had interpreted to mean Rome could not fail on a doctrinal level? Even if we accept Honorius was not speaking on faith and morals in a manner desiring to bind the entire Church, was Pope St. Agatho really ignorant of Pope St. Liberius who succumbed and signed an Arian profession of faith or Pope Felix the Arian – both in the 4th century? Was he unaware of Pope Vigilius who had to be suspended from office by the fifth ecumenical council for defending blatantly Nestorian writings in the 6th century? Did Pope Agatho truly not know what had transpired under Pope St. Vitalian, in which Rome had maintained communion with the Monothelites and abandoned St. Maximus the Confessor to death in the 7th century? Can we honestly say Pope St. Agatho was unaware of Honorius who, whether speaking infallibly or not, told Sergius Monoenergism was an acceptable theological opinion? The answer is Pope St. Agatho knew about all of these and ignored them. He was not being literal nor were the bishops present taking him literally. In fact, we find similar statements from Popes and councils. Exhibit A! the letter of Pope St. Celestine to the clergy of Constantinople:

“For, as you know, up till now you have had priests powerful in teaching and holiness, who never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed the church of God in utter tranquility” Price, Acts of Ephesus, p. 147

Did St. Celestine really think the See of Constantinople had been free of heretics up until Nestorius? What about when the Council of Chalcedon, in its official letter to Leo asking him to approve canon 28, stated, quote:

“[…] and the see of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always shown you great ardour in the cause of piety and for having zealously allied itself with you for the sake of harmony.” Price, Acts of Chalcedon, Vol. III, p. 124

But the See of Constantinople actually had not always shown itself allied to Rome. Even if we count only Pope Leo’s reign, which this seems to be referring to, Rome and Constantinople had been in schism from the time of the Robber Synod of Ephesus II until shortly before the Council of Chalcedon. So why did they say “always”? The reason is they expected the reader to gloss over embarrassments and take it as a general rule. It is the same with Pope St. Agatho’s letter: he was not ignorant nor was he lying, he was simply speaking in generalities that do not translate from culture to culture.

[VIDEO CLIP] Lastly, in the 8th century, Pope Hadrian I sent dogmatic letters to be read aloud at the Council of Nicaea (787), in which he states: “For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever”. This was also read aloud in both Greek and Latin, and inscribed into the official Acts of Nicaea II, Session II. According to Orthodox theologian Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, the Eastern bishops gave “total recognition that the pope of Rome held Peter’s See, and that Rome was in a unique way heir of Christ’s promises to Peter” (His Broken Body, 200).

There are three issues here. First, rather than consult Fr. Cleenewerck on what Pope Hadrian mean, it would be better to consult the actual acts as well as the scholar who not only translated them, but wrote the commentary on them: Fr. Richard Price, a Catholic priest and patristic scholar.

Second, in his introduction to Session II in his translation and commentary on the Acts of Nicea II, Fr. Price points out that the same letter of Pope Hadrian Mr. Ybarra is quoting from also demands the Byzantine Emperor return properties in southern Italy and Sicily to the papacy; demands the Ecumenical Patriarch returns jurisdiction of the entire Balkans, Greece, Sicily, and Calabria to the Pope; demands that the Patriarch of Constantinople desist from using the title “Ecumenical Patriarch;” and finally, this letter reprimands St. Tarasios for being elevated from the lay state to the patriarch. The council, which Mr. Ybarra claims accepted Vatican I ecclesiology, simply ignores all of those demands. Notice also that Hadrian does not threaten to break communion over it.

Third, and most importantly, in this very same letter to the Council, Pope Hadrian tells us exactly how Roman primacy is acted out and it is not what Mr. Ybarra claims it is. Hadrian states, quote:

“[Peter’s] See, which exercises primacy throughout the world, was set up as the head of all the churches of God, and has always held and retains the primacy which the blessed Peter the Apostle exercises through an injunction of the Lord’s and with the church no less asserting, to the effect that no see in the whole church ought to have a greater executive role than the first, which confirms each synod by its authority and protects it by its continuing guidance.” Price, Acts of Nicaea II, p. 171

The listener will recall what was stated earlier about the concept of “auctoritas” and how though it is typically translated as “authority,” it is a multifaceted work meaning ratification, witness, clout, or prestige and we see this in the above quotation when Pope Hadrian states that Rome, quote “[…] confirms each synod by its authority.” Moreover, Pope Hadrian states that the effect of the primacy is that: confirmation of synods. As the synodal head, the Pope’s job was to ratify the decision of the synod just like canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons directs. So far from being an example of a Vatican I style papacy, Pope Hadrian is simply stating that the primacy of Rome culminates, or rather, that its greatest capability resides in ratifying the decision of the synod to which it is head. This ties in with the concept of the Pope as the, quote, ‘archbishop of the world’ as was discussed in the first 40 minutes of our first video.

As a side note, the last demand Pope Hadrian makes, that is complaining about St. Tarasios being elevated from the lay state, was particularly tone-deaf and the Byzantines had no plans of following Hadrian in this regard as two later sainted patriarchs, St. Photius the Great and St. Nikephorus were likewise elevated from the lay state. Both times, Rome protested, both times, the East never felt as though by ignoring the demands of Rome in this regard, they were somehow in violation of Church law.

[VIDEO CLIP] By way of conclusion, I want to continue quoting Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. He states: “Since the time of Stephen, the Roman Church has consistently taught that her bishop is the successor of Peter in a unique sense and that he holds by divine right a primary of power over the universal Church… This was expressed consistently and unambiguously by a number of Popes commemorated as Saints in the Orthodox Church, including such luminaries as Agatho and Hadrian. As we have seen, this ecclesiology was accepted by a number of Eastern Saints.” Moreover, Fr Cleenwerck states that “St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Theodore the Studite expressed the view that Rome was the unique chair of Peter that would not fall into heresy” (His Broken Body, 213)

However true that claim about St. Maximus the Confessor could have been within his life, that was certainly not the belief he held at the end of his life and we detail that in our series on St. Maximus the Confessor on our blog. Furthermore, when you read the writings of St. Theodore the Studite, he never once justifies the legitimacy of iconography on claims of Rome being unassailable, but instead, he bases it on the Church’s liturgy, its prayers, the lives of the saints, etc. It is odd that for someone who supposedly thought Rome could not fall, he wrote volumes and volumes justifying the usage of icons in the Church’s tradition when all he would have had to do was point to an infallible decree from Rome or the tradition of the Church in Rome. Strange – almost like he didn’t think Rome was infallible. According to Fr. Christiaan Kappes, a Catholic priest and patristics scholar, St. Theodore actually used sacred mathematics to show the majority of the Pentarchy would always stay orthodox.

[VIDEO CLIP] Again, Fr. Alexander Schmemann states: “The theory of the ‘power’ (potestas) of the Roman primate was openly proclaimed in Rome in the era of the ecumenical councils… but the East, without ever really accepting it, until the ninth century never once expressed its non-acceptance or rejection of it in any clear way…When Catholic scholars now assert, on the basis of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, that the East recognized the primacy of Rome at that time but later rejected it, it is rather difficult to answer the charge on the basis of formal historical evidence, since one may in fact conclude from the history of those two councils that the Greek bishops admitted the special prerogatives of the Roman bishop” (The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, 240-41)

We would be interested to see if and where Rome ever did use the term “potestas” to refer to its jurisdiction outside of its patriarchate. That I am aware of, it used the term “auctoritas,” which, as has been mentioned previously, referred to clout, prestige, and witness. It was also used to refer to the right of a guardian to ratify the decisions of their wards, the right of the senate to appoint consuls – the consuls could then could make binding decisions using their potestas. Auctoritas could also refer to a deed of ownership. But what separated “auctoritas” from “potestas” was “potestas” carried a sense of pro-active juridical power while “auctoritas” referred to a more passive ratifying power. The difference could be summed up in this way: auctoritas made one more of a gatekeeper who could close or open the gate to those whom they wished. Contrast that with potestas, which made one able to command others to go in and out of the gate. This will play a role later on in this video when we discuss the letter of Pope Hadrian I to the 7th Ecumenical Council.

Mr. Ybarra has repeatedly stated he does not recognize the difference between these two terms but has also repeatedly denied he needs to cite either modern experts or the Roman jurists themselves. This is particularly important because the terms are meticulously well defined by the Roman jurists because they used the terms through their legal codices, legal codices that found their way into the law Code of Justinian in the mid-6th century and then various adaptations of that in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries and were part of Roman legal code until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

But this is the type of Dunning-Kruger Effect Mr. Ybarra marinates in: he thinks that skimming quote mines entitles him to have opinions of the same level of validity as the Roman legal experts and scholars in Latin when it comes to understanding legal terms in a language he does not know.

Back to auctoritas and potestas – The terms retain their distinction even in Church usage. We know because in Pastor Aeternus, the term auctoritas is used to speak of Rome throughout the document except during the sections declaring universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction and the power of infallibility. At that point, the document suddenly, switches to using “potestas.” This is not a coincidence, it is written that way because the pope’s Latinists knew the difference between the terms.

[VIDEO CLIP] From the statements adduced by Saints and Holy Councils, many of which remain recorded in the text of the highest ranking books by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is sufficiently implied that the Church of the 1st millennium believed that Christ the Lord, and not the Church, set Peter over the whole Church with a universal primacy of jurisdiction as the supreme judge of all the faithful, whose prerogatives continue in the person of his successors, and empowers them to issue infallible doctrine that cannot be challenged by any human power. The statements adduced above come from eminent Church Fathers and the highest ranking texts for both Catholics and Orthodox. The definition of Vatican 1, therefore, is well within the bloodstream of Apostolic Tradition.

With that, Mr. Ybarra ends his introductory remarks and Fr. Patrick begins his opening statement. Fr. Patrick gave a very good opening statement and being as we agree with Fradd’s audience that Fr. Patrick won the debate, there is no need to review what he said. After Fr. Patrick finished his opening statement, Erick nervously stumbles through his first rebuttal.

[VIDEO CLIP] So one of the things I’d like to say here in my rebuttal is simply that the Vatican Council as I said had four parts: the institution of the primacy, the permanence of the primacy, the nature of the primacy, and the infallible prerogative of that primacy. And you know I quoted from a number of instances in the early Church where it’s clearly delineated that Christ while he was in the flesh, singled out Peter and equipped or invested him with a primacy of jurisdiction and that this was not given through any intermediation, it wasn’t given through a Council’s decrees, as Pope Damascus the First says in 382, it wasn’t regulated by at least in terms of giving the bishop of Rome the authority from scratch by any of the canons the preeminence of the primacy the number of witnesses in the Ecumenical Councils like the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

One of the issues here is the level of Peter Syndrome present in Mr. Ybarra’s speech. He assumes “primacy of jurisdiction” simply means “Vatican I” when in reality, primacy simply means being the first in a line of equals. So as Orthodox Christians, we understand “primacy of jurisdiction” to mean the type of appellate jurisdiction given to the Pope at the council of Sardica in 343. Likewise, we believe the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has a primacy of jurisdiction per canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon stating he can hear appeals from other patriarchates. Further, of the two figures whom Mr. Ybarra quotes earlier, both Stephen of Dor and St. Maximus the Confessor, both of them explicitly state the canons contributed to Rome’s primacy. So at best, Mr. Ybarra can argue that there is a divine primacy without teeth but that the privileges themselves are granted by canons.

[VIDEO CLIP] Both, all of those give information that speak to the permanence of the primacy of Rome in the See of Rome only it’s implied that it’s the non-transferability is implied by the Divine Institution. I take Divine Institution to imply Divine Irreversibility and because the primacy of Rome was Divinely instituted and fixed with the life of Saint Peter. Transferability to another See would require a fresh Divine Institution and so I think transferability is ruled out.

From the time of St. Paul, the Church has considered governments to be divine institutions, too. The episcopate, presbytery, and diaconate are also divine institutions as are slave-master relationships – they are all established by divine law in the Scriptures. Furthermore, many Church Fathers saw the Christian Roman Empire as the divine institution par excellence, which led some to believe its capital, Constantinople, could never fall. In the very wording of the 3rd canon of Constantinople I and the 28th canon of Chalcedon, the logic is that Rome has primacy because of its secular status so those framers of those canons as well as those who followed them considered a level of transferability. Once again, Mr. Ybarra assumes a term like “divine institution” is just automatically synonymous with “infallible autocrat.”

[VIDEO CLIP] The other part of the Vatican Council was the nature of the primacy the jurisdiction I quoted from the I quoted from Pope Saint Martin who delegated John, a bishop of Philadelphia who was delegated by Pope Martin to go into the Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem and to replace some of the Church offices that were seized and this is for the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon and then he appeals to the authority that was given to Saint Peter by the Person of Christ. So it’s an immediate indirect non-intermediatory authority that Pope Martin claims and Pope Martin is a highly venerated Saint in the Orthodox Church, he is a martyr and I think his voice needs to be reckoned with because it also goes along with a chorus of other Saints as Father Laurent Cleenewerck made clear, many Saints and especially in the West, many of those being Popes and then also Eastern Saints spoke about this singular prerogative of the Roman See that doesn’t come from canons but it came from Christ the Lord to Saint Peter.

This is the second of three times that Mr. Ybarra brings up Lateran 649 to support his argument and we will hold off on commenting on it because he expands on this point further during the cross-examination.

[VIDEO CLIP] The other part of the Vatican Council was the infallible prerogative of Saint Peter and his successor. I brought out that this was stated by Pope Agatho in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it was accepted by the Greeks with no contest, no disagreement. Father Alexander Schmemann recognized that the Council did not make any clear rejection of that and so it’s officially inscribed in the highest-ranking books for the Orthodox Church, one of the Ecumenical Councils. Father Alexander Schmemann also recognized that the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas was basically the whole essence of the papacy in that claim in that in that formula and it was signed by numerous people in the East and the West to heal the Acacian Schism. So I think that the Vatican Council’s Decrees if we could find a bare minimum would be that Christ singled out Peter to have a primacy of authority. Two, that primacy continues to live on in his successors in the Roman BishopricFl. Three, that primacy is universal and has jurisdiction, and four, it’s Divinely instituted and therefore is Divinely irreversible and would last until the end of time. I think that no other ecclesiology today, whether we’re talking about the Coptic Orthodox the or the Eastern Orthodox, really has room in its bloodstream to welcome that kind of ecclesiology without severe modifications and so it leaves, I believe, Rome, the Roman Catholic Church as the only legitimate continuation of this Petrine configuration which has so many voices from Saints and martyrs in the first millennium.

We have already addressed the claims about Pope St. Agatho and Pope St. Hormisdas in the first part of this video so they need not be rehashed. What does need to be addressed are Mr. Ybarra’s statements on ecclesiology. What Mr. Ybarra is trying to say is that the bare minimum of Vatican I is the early practice and he does not see how that could fit with anyone else’s ecclesiology. Now he is right that Vatican I is incompatible with any ecclesiology save for the Catholic Church’s – he is completely correct on that but he is essentially trying to fit a round peg in a square hole because the starting point should not be Vatican I but history itself and considering the admissions by the Pope’s handpicked representatives and scholars at Ravenna and Chieti, the Catholic hierarchy no longer believes Pastor Aeternus and Satis Cognitum accurately represent Church history. In fact, linked in the video description is the Chieti document, and it is worth a read, specifically paragraphs 15 through 20 in which the Pope’s handpicked scholars sell out on the official position of the Catholic Church. It is at this point that Mr. Ybarra beings his second rebuttal.

[VIDEO CLIP] Okay so the first thing I would say is that you know responding to this idea that universal authority removes the authority of others like Saint Gregory the Great said Saint Gregory the Great is teaching that if there is one bishop of the globe then then everyone else there can’t be another bishop that Seems logically required but that does that’s not what Gregory still taught that all the churches were subject to the Apostolic See according to the principle of dispute. So whenever he’s famous for saying this when all things are at peace everyone is an equal every bishop is an equal brother but whenever there is a dispute that arises there is not a single church under the sun that is not subject to the Apostolic See.

The very event Mr. Ybarra is referencing to demonstrate his point actually demonstrates the opposite. The way in which the discord itself was handled proved it never occurred to the bishops involved that they were at Rome’s beck and call in matters like this. In fact, what the controversy showed was that St. Gregory could really only protest because he realized breaking communion would be too far over the line after he found himself all alone as the other patriarchates he contacted did not think much of it.

[VIDEO CLIP] The other thing I wanted to say was that you know the Council of Sardica set up appellate jurisdiction of Rome which makes perfect sense because even as late as 1931 Pope Pius IX in Quad Quatressi Anno stated that the principle of subsidiarity is vital to any philosophy of government and including the Church which is why Rome always stood by the idea of a chain of appeals before coming to the Court of Rome the last Court trying to make it a matter of first instance is not it was it was not permitted and even at the Council of Trent, appeals of first instance weren’t allowed in Rome and that’s well after the Greek and Latin schism.

Mr. Ybarra would be offering a valid point here only if we were insisting on a zero-sum equation of either papal autocracy or appellate jurisdiction, but that is not our argument and we go into some detail on this in our very first video from the minute 48 mark to 1 hour 8 minute mark. Our argument is that the situations he is setting up as examples of papal autocracy are actually explained by the system of appellate jurisdiction so instead of being examples of Vatican I, they are just examples of a review court set up by a synod.

[VIDEO CLIP] The other thing I wanted to say was Father mentioned that the Council of Sardica was within the patriarchate of Rome, however, in the 5th century in 451, Flavian Saint Flavian of Constantinople who was a Saint in both of our rituals he appealed to Rome over the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 449. I say ecumenical because for all intents and purposes it was ecumenical from its convocation. Flavian appealed to Pope Leo and Leo interpreted that as in his letter 44 to in letter 44 in the Leo 9 epistolary he refers to Leo’s I’m sorry he refers to Flavian’s appeal as an application of the cannons of Sardica and so we already have in 450 an appeal from an Eastern Saint in Constantinople no less over an Ecumenical Council to Saint Leo and Saint Leo registers that as a the Sardican privilege which means that it’s got to be wider than the Roman Patriarchate what could possibly have foisted a confusion on this matter between Rome and Constantinople in such a short amount of time.

On this point, Mr. Ybarra is actually correct. The Sardican privilege was accepted early on in the East and there is no indication it was something limited to the East. Where he is wrong is in that he assumes they were the appeals court when really, they were simply a review court that sent cases to appeals.

[VIDEO CLIP] The other thing is Saint Cyprian of Carthage, yes he did sustain the absolute equality of all bishops but many scholars and historians recognize that he was superseded by the a larger voice in the Church, other Saints and other bishops and Fathers have superseded his position in Leo the Great himself taught that the metropolitan had authority over you know his the bishops in a certain sense there’s no sign of metropolitical structure in Saint Cyprian but even Orthodox theologian Father Nicolas Avanasioff in Primacy of Peter page 99 edited by John Meyendorff, recognizes that Cyprian’s logic really needed a universal primate and he admits that Pope Stephen made the conclusion correctly.

It is not responsible to say there is no such thing as a metropolitical structure in St. Cyprian, specifically because St. Cyprian of Carthage held the metropolitan see of his own region and actually calls his suffragan bishops together at the Council of Carthage in 257.

[VIDEO CLIP] You had said that if the Vatican council’s decree on papal primacy was true that we would see obedience to Rome all over the place. You know the fact that there are times where there are people in the Church who disobeyed the decrees of Rome disproves or at least shows that it’s unlikely that the Vatican Council’s decrees are true. My question to you would be does Orthodox ecclesiology have unanimous acceptance by everyone with only minor exceptions in the first millennia? […] I think some sort of criteria was produced which said that because Rome had been disobeyed in certain instances in the first millennium that would call into question the truth of the Vatican Council’s decrees because if the Vatican Council was true then everyone would be obeying Rome at least the majority or you know the the virtual unanimous position would be that Rome would have to be obeyed all the time so I’m curious though does Orthodox ecclesiology, you know the belief that you outlined about the you know the metropolitan authority and the bishops authority being complete in itself, does that have the same kind of universal acceptance and if not does does Orthodox ecclesiology become falsified?

The easy answer to this is no because the Church Fathers held to the same canons that lay out our ecclesiology and are the official position of the Church on these issues. The point Fr. Patrick had made that goes about a kilometer over Mr. Ybarra’s head is that if absolute obedience to Rome had been an article of faith, the popes were grossly negligent in enforcing this via excommunication.

In the debate review, Erick brings this up again claiming that this argument is analogous to saying the ecumenical councils are invalid simply because some groups did not accept them. That would be a great point except that the ecumenical councils pronounced an anathema on those who rejected their rulings while the most Rome could do in the above-mentioned cases was pout and perhaps break communion but could not force others to do so.

[VIDEO CLIP] Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in his commentary on the ninth canon of the council of Chalcedon goes on to say that you know i i don’t want to quote the whole thing here but Nicodemus states that the bishop of Constantinople cannot hear the appeals of metropolitans or bishops who want to appeal above their metropolitans and that it was restricted to the territories underneath Constantinople this is corroborated by two contemporary or well the late archbishop Peter L’Hullier who was an Orthodox archbishop former professor at St, Vladimir Theological Seminary and today contemporary Fr. John Erickson. Both of those men have said in you know first in his book on the ancient councils on the commentary on canon 9 and 17 and 28 and then also Fr. John Erickson in his book the meaning of our past Nicodemus seems to be restricting Constantinople’s appellate jurisdiction. Would you agree with that or disagree with that?

We actually answered this in our first video in May 2020 and showed St. Nikodemus’ interpretation is not only idiosyncratic but not historically accurate, even figures such as St. Photius the Great and other great canonists, Zonaras, Blastares, Balsamon, etc. took the view Constantinople could hear appeals from anywhere.

[VIDEO CLIP] Well, we have evidence for the power to do so and that would be sufficient, but we do have evidence we have evidence like I induced from Pope Martin I who ordained John Bishop of Philadelphia to go into not just the episcopate but the presbyterate and the diaconate under the See of Jerusalem and Antioch to replace basically to depose men who were ordained into office and replaced them with those who agreed with the decrees of the council Lateran 649. We also have before that Pope Theodore I who commissioned Stephen of Dor who was a disciple of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem to do the same only within the See of Jerusalem. In both instances, they appeal not to canonical right or extraordinary emergency only, they appeal to the divine power that was given by Christ to St. Peter and which was at their disposal to exercise freely so there’s that and those are two saints, Pope Theodore and Pope Martin preeminent saints, and we have the witness of Saint Maximus who also proclaimed very clearly that the the See of Rome was authorized to judge and hear the penance of those who were converting from the Monothelite heresy. I’m thinking of the life of Pyrrhus of Constantinople. We have evidence in Pope Nicholas I when he sent representatives to hear the case of Photius entering into episcopal or patriarchal office. They appeal to the canons of Sardica but that technically there was no appeal that was lodged by either Ignatius or Photius so I would say that that’s an example, you know, of immediate action and Nicholas appealed to the authority of St. Peter. He appealed the authority of the Council of Sardica and there was no clear rejection of that and Rome was never required to recant from that position.”

Pope St. Martin did not ordain John bishop of Philadelphia, he simply wrote him a letter exhorting – not “charging,” simply exhorting – him to do something from Stephen of Dor had proven incapable. As for what St. Maximus says about repentant Monothelites going to Rome for absolution, the reason is that Jerusalem was unoccupied, while Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were all in the hands of Monothelite patriarchs so there really was no one else to go to as the clergy in these areas were also largely infected with it simply by tolerating their Monothelite hierarchs. Just as important, going to Rome would respect the order of the traditional order, or taxis, of patriarchs.

[VIDEO CLIP] Well, yes and the decision to fire them from office would require the same authority to or to have them ordained by a representative. Of course the pope is not there personally to do the ordination himself but I mean we see this all the way going back to the third century where Pope Stephen was consulted, i think it was Cornelius or Stephen, I’m pretty sure Stephen, Cyprian received letters from the bishops of Gaul about Marcianus of Arles who had taken up the Novatian error and Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen so that Pope Stephen would write to the bishops of Gaul um basically mandating the excommunication of Marcianus and his replacement. So it’s not the pope personally going there, it’s not the pope, you know, traveling over there to to do that but he is commissioning a cessation of ordinary power. He’s telling the bishops in the East, you know, if you believe this, you don’t have a job anymore and we’re going to put new people in your job. That requires jurisdiction and it requires power and the kind of power that they proclaimed was not from the canons but it was from the universal pastorship that was evidenced by the New Testament with Christ in St. Peter.

The situation Mr. Ybarra is referring to is covered in letter 66 of St. Cyprian and what he fails to mention is the people of Arles had written to the pope explaining that their bishops had become a Novationist schismatic. The pope, though did not respond so they wrote to St. Cyprian who writes to Pope St. Stephen explaining the situation but not in terms of Stephen doing it alone but rather as a synodal act including the North African bishops. In this letter, St. Cyprian states that Marcianus, quote,

“[…] does not yet seem to be excommunicated by us […]” St. Cyprian, Letter 66:2

Who is this “us”? We know it is not the royal “we” because St. Cyprian addresses Stephen as “you” numerous times throughout it and refers to himself as “I.” It can only mean the episcopate as a whole.

“How vain it is, dearest brother, when Novatian has lately been repulsed and rejected, and excommunicated by God’s priests throughout the whole world, for us still to suffer his flatterers now to jest with us, and to judge of the majesty and dignity of the Church!” St. Cyprian Letter 66:2

Notice that: St. Cyprian justifies Novation’s excommunication not based on that by the Pope but that Novation has been excommunicated by the episcopate as a whole. The single line in the letter Mr. Ybarra is latching onto is this, quote:

“Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place, and Christ’s flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together.” St. Cyprian Letter 66:3

But Mr. Ybarra’s eisogesis ignores the following verses where St. Cyprian states this is a group effort, quote:

“For, for that reason, dearest brother, the body of priests is abundantly large, joined together by the bond of mutual concord, and the link of unity; so that if any one of our college should try to originate heresy, and to lacerate and lay waste Christ’s flock, others may help, and as it were, as useful and merciful shepherds, gather together the Lord’s sheep into the flock.” St. Cyprian Letter 66:3

This theme of a synodal and collective act flows throughout the letter. St. Cyprian continues stating, quote:

“[…] And this ought now to be the case with us, dearest brother, that we should receive to us with ready and kindly humanity our brethren, who, tossed on the rocks of Marcian, are seeking the secure harbours of the Church; and that we afford such a place of entertainment for the travellers as is that in the Gospel […].” 

To put it plainly, Stephen is the most prominent bishop in the West and in the most prominent city in the entire Empire, therefore, making him a focal point of unity and communication – notice St. Cyprian asks that once the situation has been handled, that the name of the new bishop be sent to him for their records. Finally, the journey from Rome to Arles is much shorter and safer than the see route from North Africa to Arles making communication easier if Rome were to handle it. The bishops in Gaul wrote to Rome twice asking for assistance, when did not hear back on either occasion, they wrote to St. Cyprian. What Mr. Ybarra does not understand from this is it means the bishops in Gaul did not think only Stephen could issue a deposition, if they did, they would not be writing to Cyprian. We see this same theme again in letter 67 when the clergy in three Spanish cities write to St. Cyprian asking for assistance in regards to two Spanish bishops reinstated by Rome after they had lapsed. St. Cyprian and his synod immediately depose said bishops over and above what the pope had decreed.

[VIDEO CLIP] We wouldn’t need a direct ordination to prove the power they’re in because it would kind of be like saying ‘hey uh Bishop Photius, prove that you have jurisdiction in your diocese, I want you to fire all your deacons and replace them tomorrow.’ It wouldn’t be fitting, it wouldn’t be appropriate to demand that kind of evidence for the bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction. In the same way, I think it wouldn’t be expected and we have evidence of it but I think it would be unfair to require as a criteria for Rome’s ordinary and immediate jurisdiction pulling the trigger on all these things that we would normally expect to be extremely rare and possibly non-existent because Rome always supported the idea of subsidiary problems should always be resolved in the smallest context before they’re enlarged to the next court and to the next court and then to the highest court.

In the debate review, Mr. Ybarra, on three occasions, mentions that one does not need examples from history to prove the Catholic point but simply needs the words of Christ to St. Peter and various statements of saints, which Mr. Ybarra interprets to be pro-Vatican I. Ironically, he claims all of this while simultaneously insisting that there are a plethora of examples from history to support his point. Now, if Mr. Ybarra is correct that one does not need examples from history but simply statements like “tend my sheep” or “tend the flock assigned to you,” how does he expect to understand what those statements actually mean? This is not the first time he has made this humorously naïve and outright baffling claim because we addressed it in our first video when he stated that having to prove one’s point from history was a, quote, “distortion.” The listener can hear it for themselves.

But beyond that, the Ecumenical Patriarch would not need to quote “fire” all of the deacons – we call that deposing – under him to prove he can because the canons make it clear he can depose anyone who does not keep up the role and life of a deacon. The canons do not mention anything like that for the papacy.
Ultimately, what Mr. Ybarra is arguing for might be known as a “papacy of the gaps” argument in much the same way the “God of the gaps” argument fails. In other words, legitimate knowledge gaps in the historical record are mistakenly assumed to be proof of the papacy.

[VIDEO CLIP] I would say that just like the office of a bishop doesn’t require New Testament evidences of bishops you know deposing the deacons and replacing priests, there’s simply the injunction of St. Paul to the Ephesian bishops: ‘take care of the flock that’s been entrusted to you,’ that’s enough that suffices to explain that bishops have jurisdiction over their flock in the same way when Christ said to St. Peter ‘feed my sheep.’ That was understood by the popes to be the empowerment to jurisdiction of primacy over the whole universal Church and we do see evidences of this in many instances but I think that personal ordinations by his own hands would be something that would would be less preferred even if he did have the power to do that because there is a rule to the Church: the Church has canons, the Church has rules and the popes wanted to uphold those as best as possible and anything extraordinary to that should be extremely rare. But nevertheless, we do see countless testimonies to the pope having that divine power and we also have the pope doing actions which would require that power which aren’t precisely what you’re asking for.

In 3 John, we see the community had an issue with Diotrephes, a bishop who was causing problems and this required the intervention of St. John the Apostle who was coming in person to handle it. Additionally, St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred sometime around the year 108, gives evidence of it in the 9th chapter of his Letter to the Smyrnaeans when he states the mysteries are to be celebrated only by someone approved by the bishop – it goes without saying that if one is no longer approved of by the bishop, they are no longer to celebrate the mysteries, i.e. they are deposed.

[VIDEO CLIP] I would say it is extraordinary and not not by way of power it’s not an extraordinary power, it’s an extraordinary event and that was the what happened during the overtake of the Church by local lords and secular rulers, they were hiring their own bishops, lay investiture was a problem, the popes were pressed against the wall to figure out how to manage the churches in the West and they tried not to go this route but they felt that this was the only thing they could do and they felt empowered by an ancient principle of primacy.

Well, no actually, they felt empowered by the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, the Donation of Constantine, and Pseudo-Symmachian forgeries. We have a video on this that came out in February 2020 that we recommend as it presents the evidence of just how effectively the forgeries formed this new mind in Rome [found here].

[VIDEO CLIP] I think it’s a debilitating problem in the orthodox church today we’re going on a century of an attempt to have a pan-Orthodox synod in order to address the many problems that plague the Orthodox Church in terms of canonical abuses and issues of doctrine, I would add. But, not that we don’t have our own problems in the Catholic Church. However, as Fr. Ratzinger said in his book “Church Politics and Ecumenism,” he foresaw that the Orthodox Church would never be really be able to get a pan-Orthodox council because the criteria for such a thing is requiring cooperation with all the members and heads of the Orthodox Church and in order to call a council without that, you have to have a distinct power of unification in a subject who can order the rest and I think that the only ecclesiology that can suffice for that is where you have a patriarchal head who has that power of unification. You can’t have the power to unify unless you have some element of coercion behind the order if what the Patriarch of Constantinople says is a suggestion or if he convenes a council even if he thinks it has authority, the other heads of the Church can simply say ‘Hey our ecclesiology on primacy hasn’t been settled, the canons don’t say much about this on a universal sphere so we just don’t we’re just not going to go along with it’ and the Orthodox Church remains divided on the issue and it’s simply that and the Council of Crete that was attempted in 2016 is proof positive that just four out of the 14 autocephalous bodies could omit themselves from a pan-Orthodox synod and that immediately demotes the council from pan-Orthodox. Now, Constantinople thinks that it’s authoritative but most of the Orthodox Church does not so I think that the Catholic Church has the advantage but I also think it matches the apostolic tradition that we see from the ancient principles of petrine primacy.

Here, Mr. Ybarra is relying on the Catholic understanding of what an ecumenical council is: a council that binds the believers to certain dogmas. This is not actually what an ecumenical council is for us as Orthodox Christians. In fact, we purposefully call a specific seven councils ecumenical and it is most likely in remembrance of the unity Rome once shared with us. We do have dogmatically binding councils: Constantinople 879, which overturned the anti-Photian council and barred any additions to the Creed. We have the Council of Blachernae in 1285, which is our official response to the Filioque. We also have the Palamite Councils from 1341-1351, which, building upon the sixth ecumenical council in 681, is our official response to Thomism. We have the Council of Jassy in 1642 and the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, which are our official responses to Catholicism and Protestantism. In between those two, in 1666-7, we had the Council of Moscow which served as almost a second Trullo or Quintisext council in that it was largely just handling canonical affairs and not dogma. We tried to have another one in 2016 but so far, only 10 of the 14 autocephalous churches have accepted it. Now, one might ask how we could have a binding council without the pope present because the witness of the first millennium is clear – if the pope, along with the other patriarchates, does not ratify the council, then it cannot be considered binding upon the faithful. The answer to this comes in the form of the fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II. The bishops there proceeded forward without the Pope because they had suspended Pope Vigilius from office for defending Nestorian writings. Regardless of what one thinks about this, in the seventh ecumenical council, we find this odd statement by the 7th Ecumenical Council, quote:

“When the holy and ecumenical fifth council had assembled at Constantinople, a common and universal anathema was imposed on Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and on the teaching of Evagrius and Didymus on pre-existence and a universal restoration, in the presence and with the approval of the four patriarchs.” 7th Ecumenical Council (787), Session I Price, Acts p. 132

Notice that only four patriarchs are mentioned. In the eyes of the Fathers at Constantinople II and the Fathers at Nicea II, the Roman see was simply vacant at that point. This is one reason why the Orthodox Church can still have dogmatically binding councils: because the seat of Rome, in our eyes, is vacant.  

Further, in the first millennium, the pope calling a council did not gather much in terms of bishops. Case in point, the Lateran Council of 649 was called by the Pope without imperial backing. It drew roughly only 105 bishops, all of which were from Italy, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and a couple regions of Africa. Only one bishop, Stephen of Dora, was from outside those areas and he was from Palestine. In fact, the council was so desperate to present itself as ecumenical and trying to show off Roman prestige, that of the four letters it presents at the council, two were not even written to the council but were written years before to the Pope. We recommend the listener read our article entitled “Does the Lateran Council of 649 Prove Papal Infallibility?”

[VIDEO CLIP] The issue of the Nestorians, they may be I don’t we don’t invite Nestorians into the Church to reject the decrees of any of the ecumenical councils, one of which condemned Nestorius very clearly so he may be referring to the fact that uh certain eastern Churches have been allowed uh for some reason to uh uphold uh a memory of Nestorius. He’s certainly not a canonized saint in the Catholic Church, but you know, this is a problem that uh would probably need to be kicked up to Rome to look at more closely. However, you know the Orthodox Church as well, you know, is dealing with certain issues on this in terms of you know, I wouldn’t look at David Bentley Heart who just received the patristics award for the year 2019 who is openly Orthodox [probably meant “heretical”] and never disciplined by any cleric in the Orthodox Church as an indication that the Orthodox Church now allows universalism and yhis sort of dissidence. I wouldn’t allow the constant accusations of heresy towards Patriarch Bartholomew yet there being no ecclesial pronouncements upon the matter as if now the Orthodox Church allows schism and heresy within its own bosom. I wouldn’t go to that extent. Of course, if somebody wanted to enforce the Catholic to be that way I would simply turn the table and say the problem is equal on your end. So I do think there are inconsistencies there are definitely members of the Catholic Church that go against the Catholic teaching, President Biden is a perfect or most popular example today, however, when it comes to what the Church requires and what the Church has taught and what it demands is clear.

But we do not have an anaphora named “The Anaphora of St. David Bently Hart” and God forbid, if we did, it would be universally hated – pun intended. But seriously, the Assyrian Church of the East, also known as Nestorians, has three anaphoras that are used. For those not familiar with the eastern tradition, the anaphora corresponds to the canon of the mass in the West. The first is the anaphora of Mari and Addai. The second is the anaphora of Mar Nestorius, who was condemned at Ephesus in 431 and died in 451. The third is the anaphora of Mar Theodore, named after Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in 428 and was condemned in 553 at Constantinople II. In Assyrian Aramaic, the prefix “mar” means “saint” or “lord” and is applied onto the names of saints and living hierarchs. When the Chaldean Catholics were accepted in, they were allowed to continue using the anaphoras of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia though the Chaldean Catholics in the US only use the anaphora of Mari and Addai.
Further, under Pope John Paul II and the Nestorian Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, the Catholic Church reopened a contingent communion between the Chaldean Catholics and the Nestorians after an agreed Christological statement in 1994. The agreed statement, entitled “Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East” [found here] Now, when the Declaration comes to the topic of the anathema and veneration of Nestorius, Theodore of Mospsuestia, and other heretics, it states, quote:

“The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord’s Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.”

In other words, the Pope signed a declaration claiming the doctrinal statements produced by the 3rd, 4th, and 5th councils were mistaken – not to mention the repetition of those statements and the theology built upon them by the 6th and 7th ecumenical councils.

[VIDEO CLIP] So what I would want is for Orthodoxy’s principles to be consistently upheld by the Scripture and the Tradition as evidenced in history, Church Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils. What I see all over the place in the first millennium are many countless saints who teach something that’s absolutely contradictory to modern day Orthodox teaching and that is the See of Rome was the principle of unity, had a power of unification, which consisted of jurisdiction divinely given back during the apostolic time, given to St. Peter by Christ and the divinely irreversible in the Roman Church that is proclaimed too often and by too many saints. It’s echoed in ecumenical councils as I brought out, it’s recognized by Protestant and Orthodox scholars. At the very least you have a great division in the patristic evidence and if that division is so egregious that history no longer becomes a good compass to follow towards the truth, then both the Catholic and the Orthodox and anybody else is really debilitated when it comes to finding the truth through history. So I think the Orthodox Church really suffers from its claim that Rome was like the preeminent see of the first millennium and then it fell in the 11th century when scholars today all recognize that those claims in the 11th century were already being claimed in the early centuries of the Church. I quoted Archbishop Stylianis of Australia, he’s an Orthodox scholar. He admitted this goes back to Stephen. Fr. Lauren Cleenewerk admits it goes back to Victor. Fr. Alexander Schmemman admitted the Formula of Hormisdas is the essence of the papal doctrine so you have a division in the history of the Church. I think the greater probability is that the Catholic Faith is true. If the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology had the majority of the fathers and the councils then I think I would consider Orthodoxy more.

Notice how Erick Ybarra has now reinterpreted what Fr. Cleenewerck, Archbishop Stanely, Fr. Schmemann, etc. had said to align with his own views. They never said the papacy was present, only that seeds which would later develop into it were there. Later, in the debate review video, Erick does this twice more showing he either has memory problems or is simply lying. But the opinion of a couple of priests and bishops pales in comparison to that of a Pope. You will recall that we had brought up both the Ravanna and Chieti documents, both of which will be linked below and we encourage you to read them as both are examples of the pope’s handpicked scholars conceding the past was not Vatican I or Satis Cognitum. But even before that, we have Pope Emeritus Benedict the XVI stating the Orthodox Church is the original Church. In the first, the interviewer asks the then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who at the time was head or prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, better known as the Roman Inquisition. The interviewer asks him what relations are like with the Orthodox Churches and Cardinal Ratzinger states, quote:

“Contacts with them are only superficially easier; in reality we are faced with grave problems. These Churches have an authentic doctrine, but it is static, petrified as it were. They remain faithful to the tradition of the first Christian millennium, but they reject later developments on the grounds that Catholics decided upon these developments without them. For them, questions of faith can only be decided by a “really ecumenical” council, i.e. one which includes all Christians.”

The other is the so-called “Ratzinger Formula,” which he also proposed while Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium […] Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 199.

Pope Benedict then re-proposed this idea while Pope so it was not something he had left in the past. Now, granted, he shut down attempts at the Melkites to do the same thing in 2005 but never dropped the above formula as a bridge to reunion with the Orthodox Churches.

[VIDEO CLIP] As a closing remark, I would simply say that in my opening statement, I brought many examples from the Church Fathers, the bishops, the councils, and decrees of Ecumenical Councils that testified to the four parts of the Vatican decree, When Catholics say that the Successor of Peter has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, we simply mean that Christ gave to St. Peter this power without any intermediation so it wasn’t a power that was given to the Church first and then given to the Bishop of Rome are then given to Peter. It was given directly to St. Peter and a lot of the testimonies I brought out bore that testimony out and as I was saying before Protestant and Orthodox scholars recognize that today – scholars recognize that there is sort of a two distinct ecclesiologies roughly speaking that developed in the early centuries and eventually grew into the division that came about in the second millennium. However, I would say that the orthodoxy of Elder Rome being superior but – and Orthodox theologians have recognized this – that the saints all looked to Rome in the first millennium as a bulwark of Orthodoxy its constant tradition on this matter is unmistakable unambiguous and if we were to cut off half the Church in order to preserve the Orthodox truth today, then I think we’re undercutting too much and we’re falsifying both Catholicism and Orthodoxy so I think that none of the opening statement remarks I made were really dealt with, especially the Formula of Hormisdas which doesn’t just have a few acceptances, it was accepted by many many bishops in the East many bishops in the West and it was signed again and again in other times of reunion between the East and the West so I would simply – and then also some of the objections we heard about the appeals court and Cyprian of Carthage, the evidences I induced from other saints were not dealt with. It was as if Cyprian should be the house that wins all but it’s very clear that so many other Fathers and councils contradicted that and so I don’t think that was adequately dealt with and in terms of evidence, I don’t believe that finding evidence of the pope going out and being Rambo on all the churches in the East and ordaining clerics at a whim and taking his horse and going around all over the East to ordain bishops and clerics is evidence or is the bare minimum criteria. All you need is Christ established Peter as the primate, that primacy is indefectible and irreversible, it’s fixed in the Roman See, and it involves jurisdiction and supremely authoritative teaching. All four of those four elements are the bare minimum evidence you would need and we have so many testimonies in that regard. The bishops of the Orthodox Church themselves agreed to this partially in 1274 but even more substantially at the Council of Florence in the 15th century. Father mentioned how he doesn’t want an autocratic will who can change things left right and whenever but the popes have always worked in tandem with bishops and even with Eastern Orthodox bishops but the Orthodox bishops never sustained those decrees because they’ve redeveloped an idea for an epistemological recognition of councils and ecclesial authority which today is debilitating the Orthodox Church completely because it can’t take the first step to making a universal resolution on a single matter.

First, I do not know if Mr. Ybarra has memory issues or just likes to lie but he makes the humorous statement that “the saints all looked to Rome in the first millennium as a bulwark of orthodoxy.” If this were the case, they would not have suspended Pope Vigilius from office at the fifth ecumenical council in 553. They would not have sided with St. Photius when he excommunicated Pope Nicholas I in 867 or when he returned after the death of St. Ignatius in 877 and again at the Council of Constantinople in 879 when he insisted on keeping the Filioque out of the Creed. To say the East saw Rome as general Orthodox is fair, to say they saw Rome as always a bulwark of Orthodoxy is just a fantasy.

Second, Mr. Ybarra states that the bishops of the Orthodox Church agreed to his four points in 1274 at 2nd Lyon and in 1439 at Ferrara-Florence. On the topic of Ferrara-Florence, if you have not already, we would encourage you to watch our video from March 2021 entitled “VaticanCatholic Refuted on Orthodoxy and Ecumenical Councils, When LARPing Goes Wrong.” which deals with the claim that the Council of Florence is ecumenical for us – it was not as only two patriarchates ratified it while four rejected it. So no, this was not accepted by our bishops. As mentioned earlier, we have had a series of pan-Orthodox councils since the schism and made numerous decisions so Mr. Ybarra is either ignorant or lying there.

We want to thank our paid subscribers whose generous support makes our work possible. You can support us here.