Pints With Aquinas - Catholic / Orthodox Papacy Debate (Erick Ybarra Vs Ubi Petrus)

Episode Date: December 8, 2024

Resolution: Is the Vatican 1 Concept of Primacy Manifest in the 5th/6th Centuries of the Undivided Church? Format: 20 minute openings 20 minute rebuttals  15 minute cross-examination 50 minute open dialogue Sponsors: Hallow: https://hallow.com/mattfradd Strive21: https://strive21.com/matt Exodus90: https://exodus90.com/matt

3, 2, 1. G'day everybody and welcome to Pints with Aquinas. Today we have a debate for you. The debate will be between Eric Ibarra and Ubi Petrus. The resolution they will be debating is, is the Vatican I concept of primacy manifest in the fifth and sixth centuries of the undivided church. Here's how the schedule will break down. We're going to begin with 20 minute opening statements each, then 20 minute rebuttals. We'll have a quick break after

that. When we come back we'll do 15 minute cross examinations and then we will conclude with a 50 minute open dialogue. We thought it was really important that the two of these fellows could lay out their case before they got to that point. So without further ado, here is Eric Ibarra and Ubi Petrus. Good to have you. Thank you, Matt. Fabulous to be here, thank you. Thank you for making the trip. All right, well why don't you just spend a couple of minutes introducing yourself and then we'll get into the debate. Yeah, so I'm Eric Ibarra, a Catholic apologist. Many people know my material online.

I am from Orlando, Florida, married to six boys. And yeah, I have a Patreon account at Classical Christian Thought and a YouTube channel, Classical Christian Thought. And happy to be here. Excellent. My name is Denny Sellen. I'm from Seattle, Washington, and I live in Henderson, Nevada. Flew in on, I believe it was Thursday morning, and I am just one simple electrician who runs his own business. I have two daughters and a wife, and I'm charmed to be here. All right. Well well thanks very much.

So since Eric is taking the affirmative, you'll have 20 minutes, Eric. Whenever you start, I'll click the timer. All right. Good. Thank you, Matt, for hosting this debate. Thank you, Ubi, Denny, for accepting. I should begin by briefly defining Vatican I. Vatican I's doctrine of papal government

can be boiled down to three things. 1. Jesus conferred supreme authority to Peter alone. 2. The perpetuity of this authority in the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter until the end of time. 3. The nature of this authority as including full power to teach infallibly and

to possess immediate, direct, and universal jurisdiction over all Christians. My job today is to prove these three things from mutually acceptable sources of Christian history. I'll be restricting myself to three things the ecumenical councils the church fathers venerated by East and West and the expertise of scholarship particularly Eastern Orthodox Byzantinists My opponent ubi Petrus takes the position that the bishop of Rome indeed had a universal primacy of real power in jurisdiction But one that is mediated and granted to him by canonical law.

When and if a pope appeared to be exercising legitimate authority in the first millennium, Ubi takes it as merely the prerogative that constitutional law gives to the heads of a council. However, while it is true that popes often acted as heads of councils, I argue this is a reductionism. This will be the crux of our debate. Before diving into the historical sources, let me ask this. What should we be looking for in history? Some think if the papacy is true, history would be filled with examples of absolute and unstoppable papal individualism. That is, the Pope doing everything himself over and against everybody else. However,

Pius IX himself, the Pope who presided over the First Vatican Council, did not believe that this was the logical result. In June of 1871, the year after Vatican I, Pius IX accepted the famous instruction of the Swiss bishops, which made it clear that the Pope, both before and after Vatican I, is morally bound to work together with his brother bishops and the government of the Church. When he was head of the CDF, Father Joseph Ratzinger said that the papacy and the episcopate is quote, reciprocally related and inseparable, close quote. If that is true, that should influence our expectations as to what we should find in history. We should not expect to see papal individualism in the texts of history, but rather a normal

conjoining of Pope and his brother bishops, head and members, with the added detail that the Pope's authority rests upon foundations that clearly display that he was given unique and singular privileges to govern by divine right from Christ through succession from the Apostle Peter. Therefore, simply demonstrating the conciliar or synodal procedure of the Church in the first millennium will not suffice to subtract from my thesis. Now let's dive into the history. I'll be looking at four things.

Number one, the Council of Chalcedon. Number two, the formula of hormistos. And number three, the three chapters controversy. And four, a note on the schism between Pope Semachus and anti-Pope Laurentius. In the events leading up to Chalcedon, we see a Greek Archimandrite, Eudiches, and his synodal accusers appealing to Rome for a verdict on apostolic Christology, to which Pope Leo the Great issued his famous tome defining the two natures of Christ.

With terminology of papal supremacy, Leo claimed that because Christ made the Apostle Peter to share in his own authority to govern the universal church, the person of Peter's successor inherits immediately divine authorization to bindingly teach the universal church. Leo claimed that his tome was the final word that could not be revised and would serve as the sole condition for saving communion. Long before he obtained the agreement of the whole church at Chalcedon, he wrote, quote, whoever departs from Peter's confession, that is the judgment of Peter's successor, has no part in the mystical building that is the Church of Christ, close quote.

Vasily Bolotov, a 19th century Russian Orthodox scholar and a great church historian according to Father Georges Florovsky, states that in Leo, quote, all the Roman prerogatives of supremacy are to be found exactly as they have been defined by the Council of the Vatican close quote another 20th century Russian Orthodox academic Archbishop Fyodor Potsis key Who contributed notable works on the church fathers to the Moscow Theological Academy Said that the ecclesiology of Vatican I can be, quote, deduced from Leo's system by purely logical means, close quote.

He also stated that juridical immunity and papal infallibility, while logically deducible in Leo, was manifest in his successors, Pope Galatius, Hormizdas, and Agathoth the Great, each venerated by the Orthodox Church. The late Olivier Clamon, who was professor of church history at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, wrote that Leo's tome in the thought of Leo, quote, was itself decisive and that the council simply must ratify it, close

quote. Clamon sees Leo simply echoing his predecessor, Pope Seton Celestine, who reminded the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that, quote, Christ established Peter as the foundation of the church, close quote, and that, quote, Peter continued to be present in his successors, close quote. The papal legates at that council said Peter, quote, forever both lives and judges in his successors, close quote. That claim was accepted by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the entire council, and should be accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Dr. George Democopoulos, a Greek Orthodox scholar of the patristic, said that Leo held his tome to be the quote measuring stick of orthodoxy close quote calcedon can measure up or do nothing at all father Richard price the renowned patristic scholar states that Pope Leo understood his tone to be quote totally authoritative he did not believe his teaching gained any authority by being approved by an ecumenical council." Not least expressing his supremacy and doctrine, Leo overturned the sentences against Eastern

bishops who were condemned at the robber synod of Ephesus in 449. This is followed up by the Council of Chalcedon wherein the Tome of Leo was widely received by the right-believing bishops of both East and West as the authoritative voice of Peter. This council, from the very first session, accepted the Tome as part and parcel of the Church's dogmatic confessions of faith. Not everyone held that view, however. Unfortunately, resistance to the Tome and theacy Increased and new emperors devised an alternative plan to secure peace in the empire

The first strategy was to throw Leo's tome and calcedon to the periphery with the imperial edict known as the Hennoticon Calcedon became either a good option or an obstacle This was supported by Emperor Zeno and Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople. Pope St. Felix III, on the basis of his apostolic acturitas, issued a universal excommunication of Acacius and all who held communion with him. This started the Acacian schism in 484 AD. This demonstrates a claim of immediate jurisdiction since it was a judgment decided by the pope and resting upon his singular apostolic authority in St. Peter. Pope St. Galatius defended the singular right of the Roman Pontiff to issue

such a condemnation on the grounds of his immediate commission from Christ through Peter. nation on the grounds of his immediate commission from Christ through Peter. The world-renowned Greek Byzantinist Milton Anastas sums up the Roman view in the thought of Pope St. Galatius, quote, believing that Christ had delegated to the Sea of Rome supreme authority over the whole church with power to govern in all questions concerning doctrine and discipline, Galatius held, says Anastas. The Pope on his own initiative could make decisions binding upon the entire Church without recourse to a council, for in his judgment the Sea of Rome constituted the highest tribunal in the Christian Church, its decisions were irreversible and itself could not be judged by anyone." Milton Anastas received his PhD in history from Harvard University and was a

prestigious professor of Classics and Byzantine history. While many Greeks in the East were questioning Chalcedon at this time, Rome held firm to its classical narrative. Pope Saint Simplicius, venerated by the Eastern Orthodox, wrote to the Emperor Zeno that the pure Christian faith permanently, per stat in the Latin, remains quote, in the successors of Peter upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole sheepfold, whom he promised he would not fail even to the end of the world." To heal the Eastern schism, a new pope, Hormizdas, drew up a formula or a libellus. The terms were, among other things, irrevocable assent to Leo's tome and the removal of certain names from liturgical commemoration, especially acacius

More importantly in this formula he echoes his predecessor Simplicius It was professed in the formula that the Christian religion Always remains pure in Rome because of a permanent promise made by Christ to build his church upon Peter consequently Unity with the Roman sea was indistinguishable from unity with the church. Commenting on the Petrion contents of the formula, the Orthodox theologian, Father Alexander Schmabin said, The whole essence of the papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed

than in this libellish document which was imposed upon the Eastern bishops close quote. In Oxford's Oxford Press most recent monograph on Byzantine history by Greek historian and classics professor Anthony Caldellus he states the following quote for the East to return to communion with Rome all its bishops must submit to the Pope." Caldellus calls the formula a binding document that affirms, quote, Rome's supremacy over the Church, quote, requiring, quote, obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and the universal Pope, quote, quote,

acceptance of this formula meant, of course, absolute submission to the Pope, close quote. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, author of the multi-volume God History and Dialectic, writes that the formula of hormistus quote demanded the complete submission of the Eastern Church to the papacy close quote. Volker Menz, a medievalist and perhaps the foremost Chalcedonian scholar today writes quote the libellus begins with

Matthew 16 and I tell you you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church in other words since Rome was regarded as the Sea of Peter on Rome the church was built. Based on this ideological foundation, the Liberus claims not only the papacy to be in the apostolic succession since the time of the Apostles, but also to be instituted by Christ himself according to the New Testament." Elsewhere, Menz claims that the formula of Hormizda's quote required every bishop to accept the papal view on the Christian Church,

past, and faith. Dr. Claire Saundonel, the renowned patristic scholar, writes the following for the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, quote, for the Pope, the union meant that the new emperor fully accepted Roman authority in all ecclesiastical matters, disciplinary as well as doctrinal, close quote. In his Princeton monograph on Western authority, the Anglican pre-scholar Carl F. Morrison states that the formula equated Roman communion and communion with Christ as quote identical close quote and that's precisely the case. Hormizdas was not merely speaking to the past but also to the future requiring all the subscribers to avoid the communion of anybody who would deviate from Rome even in the future.

And yet it was accepted by all Easterners who came into unity with Rome. Pope Hormizdas' son, who later became Pope St. Silvarius, wrote this in the epitaph for his father, quote, Greece, defeated by holy power, submitted herself unto you, happy in having regained her lost faith, close quote. The nephew of Pope Vigilius, the Roman deacon Rusticus, records that 2,500 Eastern clergy signed the formula of hormis dust. This shows that no matter what resistance there was to papal authority or Leo's tone in the decades preceding, the resolution to the schism and the formula of homistas involved a triumph of the primitive Roman view of the papacy. The net result is that the antique theory of Petrine supremacy upheld by Rome had become, at least at this moment,

externally received by both Chalcedonian East and West in 519 AD. Now the three chapters controversy. Here we see Emperor Justinian seeking to circumvent the rules of the Church in order to enforce his own edicts to secure peace in the Empire. However, despite his attempt to use an ecumenical council without the Bishop of Rome, he ended up cornering himself into an admission that the papacy is required for any doctrine or discipline to be ratified on a universally binding level. Pope Vigilius, despite his vacillations, ended up carving out another instance of papal

supremacy in the midst of Oriental chaos. The Byzantine story on Vigilius is one of sainthood and divine supremacy. Lastly, during the midst of the occasion schism, a local dispute in Rome showcases the emergence of the claim that the Pope can be judged by no one, a principle accepted by many saints revered by the Orthodox Church. The dispute involved a rivalry to the papal throne between a certain Laurentius versus Pope Saint Semachus. Among other things, the driving force behind the resolution to this Roman schism was that even if the Roman Pontiff were guilty of certain

crimes he cannot be judged by any earthly inferior, ecclesiastical or secular precisely because he occupies the authoritative position that Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter, the head of the universal church. Multiple saints, including Pope Seimachus himself, Pope Hormizdas, who was a deacon notary at the councils that formulated the principle that the first see is judged by no one, St. Enodius of Pavia, St. Avetis of Mylevis, and St. Laurentius of Milan. All testified to this. A century later, Pope St. Gregory the Great, known by the

Greeks as the Dialogist, spoke in favor of Semachus' side of this dispute, showing his own belief in the principle the first see is judged by none. In conclusion, we see Council's, Saints' and academic scholarship testify to the manifestation of Petrine authority over all Christians, its post-apostolic perpetuity in the Roman sea and Its divine protection by Christ in virtue of his promise to st. Peter the Apostle Thank you All right. Thanks very much Eric. Very lovely Ruby you have 20 minutes for your opening statement whenever you begin. I'll click the timer. Am I close enough? Yep, okay Papal primacy is not our issue as we agree the Pope was a first and presided in love,

that he was an Archbishop of the world. Nor is Papal supremacy our issue, as we agree the Pope was the highest, most supreme bishop, who in fulfilling the role as the synodal head was required to either ratify or reject the decisions of the synods at which he presided. And so his relationship to the patriarchs was mirrored in the relationship of a patriarch to the archbishops, an archbishop to the metropolitans, and a metropolitan to the bishops,

hence the oft-used address for the pope in the first millennium, archbishop of the world. That was used repeatedly, specifically at Caledon. In the canonical literature, it is abundantly clear that the relationship between each grade of Episcopal authority is a mirror of the relationship below it and or above it. We go over this for roughly 45 minutes in our very first video responding to the arguments of Eric Ibarra from May 2020. What we do object to is the Vatican one model of a dictator who can speak infallibly as he pleases with no recourse to any council or any institution, whose whims can become incontestable decrees, as we recently saw with the Latin massium. It is a position that even the Pope's hand-picked scholars do not believe existed then, as we have seen from the Ravenna

document, also from Chiatì, also from Alexandria. Further, you bear the double burden of providing evidence that the Pope could and did speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, with the intent to bind the faithful without the cooperation of his fellow bishops. It is not enough for you to show that in his role as the head of the Roman Synod, he issued excommunications and anathemas, as that is normal in a federation of churches. And that is exactly what the first millennium church did. They were a federation of churches. And many patriarchs and archbishops availed themselves of such a privilege, cutting off from their synodal communion all those who refused to comply. A prime example of this is the situation involving St. John Chrysostom and the Patriarch of Alexandria St. Theophilus, which created a schism with Rome and was only healed under

St. Cyril. But on the topic of infallibility, when the Council of Chalcedon critically examined the Tome of Pope St. Leo, they used the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus as the standard. Had the Tome been understood as ex cathedra, this type of behavior would have been unthinkable, as it would have already been considered dogma. But when one reads the pages upon pages of the bishops critically examining it, one cannot help but realize they had no concept of the tome as being ex cathedra, nor did St. Leo for that matter, because in letter 120 he states the

Council of Chalcedon, quote, ratified his tome and that it has been, quote, received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, end furthermore when Bishop Vincent Gasser at the behest of Pope Pius IX wrote the official interpretation of pastor Aeternus known as the Relatio of Bishop Gasser he did not include the tome in his examples when trying to prove papal infallibility in the first millennium yes st. Flavian did say that all it would take is a letter from St. Leo to cure the situation with Eutyches, that is. But that is because Eutyches himself says that is what will make him change his mind,

not any commitment on the part of the Church of Constantinople. In other words, the tremendously influential person, that being Eutyches, who was actually the godparent of one of the chief eunuchs and very influential, the person who was causing all of the problems announced they would listen to whatever Leo told them. Of course, Eutyches only said that because he thought Leo would agree with him. When St. Leo did not, Eutychies immediately went to the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioskras. It's worth noting that Eutychies actually appealed

to Alexandria and as well to other seas. This is revealing, there's a revealing quotation from St. Leo's letter 14, section 12, in which he roots the primacy at every Episcopal level to the distinction between St. Peter and the other Apostles. He draws a parallel between the role of a Metropolitan among the bishops, an Archbishop among the Metropolitans, and the Pope among the Archbishops." Again, this is letter 14, section 12. And though they have a common dignity, yet they did not

have uniform rank, and as much as even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate. There was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the first, from which model has arisen a distinction among bishops also. And by an important ordinance it has been provided that everyone should not claim everything for himself, but that there should be in each province one whose opinions should have the priority among the brethren, and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal church

should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its head." Letter 1412. We know from canonical literature what the rights of bishops, metropolitans, and archbishops were, and St. Leo is drawing a parallel between those and the role of the papacy. So we have a very good idea of what St. Leo saw as a Pope's role, and it was not Vatican I, but conciliar ecclesiology, as the Orthodox Church teaches to this day. Further, St. Leo states that the higher-ups, quote, their opinion should have the priority among the Brethren. Notice its priority, not autocracy. His vision is essentially that of Apostolic Canon 34 on the universal level, which states that the head of the synod and the members should do everything in concert,

not one alone. Moving on to Pope St. Felix III, which you brought up in your introduction, it is often pointed out that St. Felix excommunicated blessed, apologize, it is often pointed out that Saint Felix excommunicated blessed Acacius of Constantinople and that is true, that is true, but far from exercising some sort of Vatican one prerogative as you would imagine or as you would argue, his successor Pope Saint Galatius states in letter 10-4 that Pope Felix did what any bishop could do in choosing to excommunicate a bishop Who failed to uphold the counts of Caledon quote?

Does you Femius not realize that Acacias was condemned according to the formula of the synod of Caledon? 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. Letcher 10-4 of St. Galatius. In Letcher 12-8, St. Galatius makes the same claim in regard to the heretics Timothy, Peter, and Peter of Antioch, and again in letter 27-3. Ticks, Timothy, Peter, and Peter of Antioch, and again in letter 27.3. This is because the great St. Galatius, far from seeing himself as an unlimited autocrat of Vatican I, understands his role as a ratifier of proposed universal synodal decisions.

In fact, in letter 1.3, St. Galatius shows he believes the episcopacy is the highest office in the Church, meaning that any office presumed to be above it can work only through the synodal model and is not an autocracy. Quote, Beyond the presbyterate, what is more important to the governance of the Church if not the episcopate? In letters 1.1, 1.9, 10.4-5, 10.9, and 27-4-5, we see St. Galatius stressing that because Rome is a synodal head, those synodal decisions that have been ratified by his predecessors have been made permanent and can only be undone via the synodal process, with St. Galatius

or his successors ratifying the decision. For St. Galatius, as for the other popes, especially St. Leo, Rome's role was analogous to that of a keystone in an arch. The keystone was put in as the crowning and last piece once the rest of the arch had been constructed. So while a keystone on its own did not make an arch, without a keystone, no arch could exist. It's just synodal ecclesiology. Now in Letcher's 1.38-39, St. Galatius even laments that he might be judged by the Church for receiving heretics into communion, and he stands in stark contrast to the claims made concerning Pope St. Samachus, which we cover in our video entitled Papal Forgeries, but St. Avetus of Vienna and Anodeus of Pavia are stating that the bishop of Rome cannot be judged, but the context

of those two quotations as well as the statements made by Pope St. Galatius and much later by Pope Innocent III, as well as the depositions of one of Samakis' successors, Silvarius, and the events surrounding the Fifth Ecumenical Council, it becomes clear that St. Avetus and St. Anodius were speaking on moral failings, not heresy, which in and of itself is suspect enough, since Saint Symmachus was on trial for supposedly having an affair with a nun. Now with Saint Agapetus, on the topic of him, there's really nothing special about a pope leading a council in Constantinople that condemns not a patriarch, but a patriarch who had resigned sometime previously. This is merely a synodal act, not the type of Vatican I autocracy you need to prove. And Pope Silvarius was deposed and exiled.

He was actually deposed and exiled. But when Emperor St. Justinian heard of this, he demanded Silvarius be sent back and be given a proper trial. Instead, though, he was handed over to Pope Vigilius, who exiled him and allowed him to starve to death. Again, not a peep was heard that the pope couldn't be judged, and even if we were to argue that Vigilius being the pope could judge Silvarius, it begs the question of how Vigilius could be a valid pope if an invalidly deposed pope was still alive, meaning that Vigilius

would still have been a non-pope judging a pope. On the topic of St. Hormistos, the gem in any pop apologetics quote mine is going to be the libellus of Hormistos due to two lines in particular, quote, in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved without blemish, end quote, end quote, and quote, in which the firmness of the Christian religion is whole and true. It's rarely acknowledged and in your book You simply denied the other versions of the Lobelus existed and I found that claim to be preposterous As is well documented in the primary sources even by st. Hormuz dos and his emissaries

Quote and this is from this is a suggestio. I'm in your report written to St. Hormuz dos from Dioscris the deacon. After much negotiation, when they, the Archimandrite, Archimandrite II, were won over by arguments, they presented Lebelli by all kinds and methods. Further, Saint Hermesdas in his letter to the ecumenical patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople, writes, quote, also let the contents of the libeli which they have presented be included in your report, end quote. He later continues, and since in your letter your love has made mention of the Jerusalemites

whose recent profession was reported to us, we considered it necessary either to review what was written or to indicate what was agreeable. None of those three quotations above make any sense if there was only one form of the libellus, and the evidence indicates that the vast majority of those who signed did not sign the libellus, but rather a libellus. They themselves compose independently. We even have one from the bunch of monks from Lebanon. But what follows the last quotation is a several paragraph long outline written by Saint Hormizdos on what the libelli being offered to him must be composed of. And it consists of teachings on the

Trinity, a focus on Christology, and even some Mariology, but no mention of the supposed papal claims in the initial Lebellus. In fact, St. Peter is not even mentioned in the outline that he gives. Assuming St. Hormizdos had been insistent on papal claims in the first Lebellus, why would he suddenly omit those as required in future Lebelli unless he himself saw them as the irrelevant rhetoric that they really were? Just chest-pounding.

The issue is really that you guys latch onto the term always, and you assume that always means every single time, but when we look at quotations from other righteous from the same period, we find absolute terms like always and never, in every way at all times, when used to describe historical events, are usually used in the same way it is in English, and that means generally speaking, or tends to. Case in point, most of the bishops present at Chalcedon had been involved in a schism with Rome over Ephesus II, Most of the bishops present at Chalcedon had been involved in a schism with Rome over Ephesus 2, in 449, that lasts until the summer prior to Chalcedon in autumn 451.

And they wrote to St. Leo concerning Canon 28, This will show also due regard for the pious emperors, who have confirmed as law the judgment of your sacredness, and the sea of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always shown you great ardor in the cause of piety, and for having zealously allied itself with you for the sake of harmony. Never mind that only months before they had not been in communion with Rome, they had always shown St. Leo great ardor in the cause of piety. How many heretics and corrupt men sat on the throne of Alexandria prior to Dioscris? Arian, what not. Speaking of Dioscris, St. Leo states, the Church of Alexandria, which has always been

a house of prayer, is not now to be a den of robbers? I have numerous other statements like this from the period under discussion that I will be presenting during the cross examination. Regardless, when all of these men are taken into account, there are a lot of always and a lot of never, a lot of grand statements, and that style of rhetoric one encounters predominantly in societies have not gone through an industrial revolution, yet even now we rarely use always and we rarely use never to refer to a consistently positive or consistently negative event. So going back to the Lebellus of Hormizdos, the question is was Pope Saint Hormizdos really unaware of popes who had failed to keep the faith unsullied? Was he really unaware of Pope Marcellinus, who had sacrificed to idols

during the persecution, or Pope St. Liberius who signed an Arian confession and condemned St. Athanasius? Was he really unaware that Pope Felix II had been an Arian? Furthermore, even if he wasn't aware of those, he would be proven wrong three decades later when Pope Vigilius repeatedly flip-flopped on the condemnation of the three chapters, and the seventh century when Pope Honorius, writing in an official capacity to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, endorsed mono-energism and monothelitism, and was condemned by an ecumenical council for doing so. We were faced with three options. St. Horm-Dos was just

incorrect, he didn't know. Two, he was lying or bluffing. Or three, he used the term always the way that we use it and he meant typically or tends to. I prefer the third option. It was a Roman way to speak in general- sorry, it was a Roman way to speak in generalities. It was a Roman way to speak in generalities is not that always simply has a different meaning in Latin and Greek than English But rather that it carries the same meaning and that is a tendency towards or generally. Yes In fact, we can look at how I've used it today or rather how I will When I came and I told Matt that I have always enjoyed pints with Aquinas There are some shows that I didn't, but almost all of them I did.

If the audience were to peruse their own usage of the word, they would find that always almost never means every single instance. This is why Christ says, I'm with you always until the end of time. He has to qualify the always with until the end of time. But let us pretend that the Lebellos of Hormizdos does not have or does have Atcomon presuppositions behind it. One would then expect that the same bishops who supposedly so eagerly signed it surely would not disregard the voice of the Pope on faith and morals in the future, but they did in the dispute over the Theoposhite formula in which Rome showed itself to be

unfavorable to the Theoposhite formula and advocated against it, but the Eastern bishops who were now in communion with Rome insisted on using it anyway. One might point out that there are currently many Catholic bishops who are in commune with Rome, yet they hold to degenerate morality. But if that is a parallel that can be drawn, what does that say about the bishops who in 519 could supposedly be cajoled into signing the libellus in the first place? Finally we come to the fact that Vigilius was deposed from his office during the seventh session of the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553.

Quote, since therefore he, Vigilius, has acted in this way, we've pronounced that his name is alien to Christians as not to be read out in the Diptychia. One may proudly point out that this was struck from the axe after Virgilius accepted the condemnation of the three chapters and was received back into communion by the East, but by pointing that out, you inadvertently admit that he had to submit to the judgment of his fellow bishops, something anathema to Vatican I. But Vigilius's condemnation is only compounded by the fact that earlier the North African

bishops had also excommunicated Vigilius for, as they saw it, wavering on Chalcedon. Now you might argue that this was outside of their rights and they were acting contra dogma, but you are forced to deal with the fact that there was, to our knowledge, absolutely no repercussions or repentance required of those bishops who had excommunicated him in the aftermath of the council or for centuries thereafter. It was simply accepted as a matter of fact that bishops could and did excommunicate a pope, and when Vigilius then accepted the condemnation of the three chapters, that the bishops could then admit the pope back into communion Thank you

All right. Thank you very much, Ubi With our opening statements out of the way We're gonna move into a time of rebuttals each debater getting 20 minutes to respond to the other Eric whenever you begin I'll click the timer. Thanks. Okay. Thank you Danny for that. That was good. So the first thing I want to mention is the multiple levels of Patrinity or Patrine primacy from bishop from the local local diocese upward. Leo does speak about a variety of levels. However, the first level, the Bishop, the local Bishop, has a peculiar set of prerogatives that the Metropolitan does

not have over his domain. And so it seems to me quite reasonable that Leo would say that the top Petrine apex, the of the church's government would have something unique that doesn't belong to patriarchs and Metropolitan's and In order to be the universal principle of unity, which is what Leo said in that letter Which is he said no one should be at odds with Peter's seat in order to have that kind of a prerogative, which is the power to unify the whole hierarchy. He has to be able to preside over the hierarchy.

In other words, in order to be the principle of unity for the whole hierarchy, he has to be able to transcend the competition because a metropolitan and another metropolitan and another metropolitan, they're in a deadlock patriarch and another patriarch and another patriarch. They're in a deadlock. So in order to consolidate unity at the top, the top has to have rights that correspond to the ability to put division to an end.

And the only way to put division to an end is to be unequal to the voices of the plural options. So there must be something unique about the universal Petrine head. Let's move on to Chalcedon. Yes, it is true, Chalcedon did use Nicaea as a standard, Ephesus 431 as a standard, Cyril's letters as a standard, but this was also Leo's perspective as well. And yet Leo, side by side with using prior dogmatic statements as a reference, as a

criterion, criteria, he also said that the Council of Chalcedon was not at liberty to review his tone. And so, from the point of Leo himself, and we know this from letter 33, letter 82, and it's testified by Richard Price, several Orthodox scholars, I can talk to them, I could bring those up later in the cross exam, that Leo did not believe that his tome could be revised. The standards given were that his tome should be ratified, but that doesn't mean the option of revised. So he wants to see his tome fully ratified in a council and for the legal means to be employed by the Byzantine emperor and the imperial commissioners. After Chalcedon, he still insists on his tone being what was

composed by Christ through the foremost see of Christendom. And letter 120, which is a famous letter that conciliarists have always appealed to even in the second millennium going up to the Vatican, Vatican 1 one yet Catholic theologians appealing to letter 120 of Leo where he says head and members agreed in order to manifest that it came from Christ the Catholic theologians have said that it's a double guarantee it's kind of like when you have in the Supreme Court you have five in favor four against that's a minimum for a law to pass. But we all want consensus, nine zero.

So Leo already believed that what was composed by Christ through the first C was sufficient to end the discussion. That's why he, all of his letters, he gives no liberty for the council to revise his letter. That's why for the council to revise his letter. That's why at the council of Ephesus 449 he simply dissolved it because it didn't employ his tome. So he had the authority to annul that council. He has the authority to ratify or annul Chalcedon depending on whether it

accepted his tome or it didn't. Okay so then Vatican One, okay you said that the burden is on me to find where the Pope alone as an individual isolated from everybody else binds everybody in the church. The problem is we don't need that. I don't need that. I don't have that burden and here's why. Vatican I itself is a ecumenical council. Yep. It's consisted of bishops voting and it consisted of the pope ratifying. So you don't have anything at Vatican I with the pope acting in absolute isolation from anybody. And yet there isn't a soul on the earth who's going to doubt that at that council

The people believed in papal supremacy and papal infallibility Nobody's gonna go around with a scanner saying yeah, but the Pope didn't say it by himself So we can't really ascertain whether they believe that So just by the fact of what they say about the Pope's prerogatives proves what they say about the Pope's prerogatives proves what they believed. In the same way when we go into the early church we don't need to find, like I said in my opening, a Pope always acting alone or even doing an instance by himself where he judges a patriarch or issues an ex catheter decree. We don't actually

need that. It's not the burden on top of me. The burden on top of me is simply to show that they believe that that power resides in the apostolic see. Moving on, the Vatican I papacy exists in conciliar modes or if the Pope decides to do something by himself. At the Council of Trent, for example, no historian I know denies that the papacy

existed then in a papal supremacist form. Same goes for the Lateran councils, Leones 1274, Florence, Vatican II, and yet at these councils you see collaboration, you see votes, you see common deliberation, and yet nobody's gonna look at that and say yeah but the papacy is not there because we didn't see the Pope do it by himself. So in the same way we just go into the first millennium use the same grid. Yeah the Pope's doing things in synods, he's doing things with ecumenical councils, he's doing things with a consensus paradigm, but that doesn't mean that the papacy as we

understand it wasn't there. So I don't have that burden. Just like I don't have the burden to prove that the Pope did anything by himself at Vatican One, he did things with a vote, 500 and some bishops voted in favor of pastor Areturnus. Did those bishops believe in papal supremacy? Yes. Why? Well, we didn't see them allow the pope to do it by himself, but they confessed that

the pope had those rights. So if we go to the early centuries and we see Pope Leo, Pope Homizdos, all these popes saying that they have these rights, then that's enough to fulfill my burden in this debate. We'll move to Pope Felix III. Yes, Galatius said that Pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius and that it is a common right, but he was just covering his base. He goes on further in that very same letter to say that, well, that's just one thing to clear me. What I did is something that every bishop can do when you have an ecumenical council preceding it. But then he moves on in the next paragraph and he says, well, wait a minute, you guys are all making a big shtick about canons, but

the canons direct everything to the Apostolic See for judgment. And then he says that the Apostolic See can always, sempere, always judge all prelates at any time, even on the sole authority of the Apostolic See. So when he said that Felix the third did this and that, you know, excommunicatious as a prerogative that any bishop can do, he said, well, that's one reason why I can't be accused of any wrongdoing, but here are other reasons I can't be accused of wrongdoing, and that's when he goes in to speak about the sole right of the Pope to, with a synod proceeding or without one. And

Devornec speaks about this at length in his book, Apostolicity in Byzantium. He says the apostolic see has the right to do that. So, the Easterners can't accuse Rome of wrongdoing in the excommunication of the cases because number one Every bishop can do this But then he goes on to give other reasons and those reasons are the ones that come into into the my side of the debate Pope hormes does yes. There was other light belly but he made it very clear to Justinian and to Justin, Justinian and the Patriarch of Constantinople that any libelli that's made has to conform to the tenure of the first one. So if the papal claims in the first formula were intolerable for the

Easterners, they made no opposition to that in their other libelli. The other libelli that they made simply fulfills the conditions that Hormizdas gave. If they thought it was heretical, they would have been outspoken against those claims, but they didn't make any kind of opposition to those claims. The only opposition they made was to the harsh subtraction of certain names from liturgical commemoration. So the papal claims in the original formula, those were never contested. Now you might say, well, it was irrelevant. That's actually right. The issue at hand was Chalcedon and resurrecting the Tome of Leo in the East. How am I on time?

You have nine minutes. Okay. So, always. Apostolic see in the track record. Yes, it's true, always is not, you know, it doesn't have to be in every single instance as some of the examples you pointed out proves. But Rome had been known for this claim. I mean, Pope Galatius made the claim, Pope Simplicius made the claim. There are contemporaries at this time that were making the claim quite concretely Theodorette of Cyrus for example when he was adorning Rome with why why is it that Rome is the first and

Why is it that it has so much prestige? Theodorette said because there has never been a heretic to sit on the throne of the Roman sea He said that right now was he correct? That's a separate question. There's a separate question. It's What he understood and what he understood was that there had not been a heretic who sat upon the papal throne The Pope's up to poor Mizdas all claimed that the Roman see had been without blemish Now where they historically correct? That's a different question. The resolution of this debate is was Vatican one

Manifest in the fifth and sixth centuries and as in my opening statement if we find saints councils and with the help of scholarship councils and with the help of scholarship where people believe these things, they believe this is resident in the church, then my burdens fulfill. Pope Vigilius, yes, he was excommunicated at the seventh session of the Council of Constantinople 553. However, that was struck from the axe. You already anticipated that. And it does not mean that he submitted to the Council. I would actually deny that.

I would agree with Father Richard Price, who in his commentary on Vigilius says something quite different. So Vigilius wrote one, his first Constitution giving like a half-hearted condemnation of the writings of Theodor Red and Theodor and then defending the letter of Ebus. Well, he revokes that later. In his second constitution, which is after the council, he has to annul his first constitution, which means he didn't believe that the council even subtracted from his first constitution. So he already believed that he was needed in order to annul his first constitution. This is what Father

Richard Price says about how Vigilius reacted to the council. Quote, he, Vigilius, could not have stated more unambiguously that his decree was final and left no room for discussion. Since at the very same time an ecumenical council was in process of discussing the very same questions, he implied that his own authority surpassed that of any council. When he capitulated to imperial pressure and came to sign the second letter to Eudauches and the second constitutum, he in no way lessened his claims. He confirmed the decrees of the council, but he did not confirm its authority. Indeed, he made no mention of it at all. Instead, he took over its

decrees and issued them in his own name. The names First and Second Constituta are modern and potentially misleading, for the Second Constitution was written not to supplement the First, but hopefully to expunge it from memory. At the same date, a new edition of the conciliar Acts was produced in which the reference to the first constitutum was removed. As a result, it was now the second constitutum rather than the first that was treated as fulfilling the promise to issue his own judgment on the chapters." So Vigilius ends up ratifying the council on his own terms.

So he doesn't submit to the excommunication. In fact, that's probably why it was expunged from the Axis, because he never came out and admitted he was wrong. In his letter to Eudicus, in his second constitution, he compares his correction to Augustine of Hippo, who in his retractations does, he's not admitting, oh, I was a heretic before and I converted to the true faith. He's saying, no, I made various kinds of errors. And the historical errors that Vigilius made, which were errors of fact, we can get into that in the cross-discrimination, Vigilius at no point made any kind of heretical

commitments. He comes around, he says, look, I've always held the faith of the church. That's what he says in his letter to Eutyches and in his second constitution. So he never admits to what the council said, which is he has proven himself to be an historian. Virgilius doesn't agree with that. And so he comes back into the leadership of the council according to the way that the acts are configured without without Without what was required of theater at at calcedon. He was required to anathematize the stories Vigilius was not put under trial that way

so yes, the excommunication was expunged from the acts and So what we what the history ofication was expunged from the Axe, and so what we, what the history of Byzantium looks at that council, they don't see that. What it looks like when you read the Axe of that council is that Vigilius didn't attend and then came in the end and there was perfect cooperation between Pope and Emperor. The Western bishops who disciplined, well, they removed Vigilius from the diptychs. Yes, there was, there were consequences to this. Pope Pelagius I, Pope Pelagius II, and Pope Gregory the Great, they dealt delicately with

these people because of how confusing the three chapters controversy was, but they didn't relent in saying that by their removing Peter from the diptychs, they immediately went into schism. And so all these churches in the West, they eventually came back into communion with the church on terms according to Rome and a transition from schism back into unity, rather than just being fully regular churches in active opposition to Rome. So even the Western seas that didn't technically add 553 to their listings, because we have listings way past the 6th century where they don't include it, they weren't doing so in

opposition to Rome. They commemorated him in the liturgy. So those churches in the West that removed the Pope from the diptychs, they went into schism and they had to fix that. Rome pled with them and argued in all kinds of ways that were accommodating, but the fact remains those Western churches were opposing the ecumenical council and papal authority, and they had to fix it by coming out of schism. Two minutes.

Okay, I'm done. I'm going to take as much time as you'd like. Yeah, I have nothing else to say. I mean, there's quotations from a few scholars, but it's not going to give me the time in two minutes. No, you can take as much time as you'd like. I'm not... Yeah, I mean, okay. So let's see Yeah, the formula for mistas

If you read it in isolation, you could you can read it in a way that it's stripped of Import but when you read it against the backdrop of the claims of Leo, Galatius, Simplicius, Samacus, and, you know, popes going forward like Agathotho, they're all looking at these Petrine prerogatives as a way, that are divinely protecting the Roman sea. Even Catholics today would not say that that means that popes are completely protected from every kind of error. So the always terminology that that's something that we can absorb as Catholics too, because popes have erred and we do agree that Honorius was condemned.

Ecumenical councils say that. So I don't think the formula and the anathema of Honorius, for example, are at odds with each other All right, thanks very much Ubi you have 20 minutes to your rebuttal Whenever you work whenever you begin Okay so you bring up a point that I want to handle right away and that is you compare

the you state that a metropolitan has certain juridical rights or rather a bishop has certain juridical rights and his own diocese and metropolitan does not have over a bishop. That's an argument I've heard you guys bring up quite a bit. The problem with that is this, if you have Pope and then you have Patriarch and then you have Archbishop, you have Metropolitan, you have Bishop, but then if you're comparing, well why is it that you know Bishop has immediate jurisdiction over his priest but Metropolitan doesn't have it over a bishop? The reason is because you, the priests are not bishops.

We're talking about ranks within the episcopacy So if you're saying a pope has the rights over bishops that bishop has over his priests There's no consistency between say patriarch to archbishop archbishop to metropolitans metropolitans to bishops um I don't i've covered that in a video called what's Wrong with Papal Infallibility. You mentioned that Ezekiel appealed to Rome, you appealed to others, St. Leo responding to critics saying that the Peter's Confession as the Tome. St. Leo, in a number of letters, comments that the tome itself was just an explication on the confession He actually thought that nothing should be done

They should just simply quote the Council of Nicaea because it speaks of Christ as being homoousios with humanity You know, so let's see You stated that the You stated that St. Leo saw his tome as a measuring stick of theology. Well, St. Cyril believed the twelve chapters to be a measuring stick of theology. You also confuse auctoritas and potestas. Auctoritas was a certain clout that you would have. It also meant ratification. For example, the Senate would ratify a consul who could then they would use our

auctoritas to ratify a consul who would then use protestos, which is actual juridical authority. It also meant witness. For example, if you people say the Bible has auctoritas, because it's a witness to the events it describes to be good witness. You have to have a good measure of reputation Let's see here what else we have You stated that st. Justinian tried to circumvent the rules of the church would you say that st. Justinian Was I mean I mean to me that makes it sound like you're saying that he was not necessarily helpful at all times to the church, which I want to just make note of that.

I would like to see those quotations from St. Gregory on St. Semachus. You comment on multiple levels of patronage. Oh, I handled that already. Bishops' jurisdiction over priests is not the same as that of metropolitan's over bishops. And you state that the Pope has to be able to put down division, so he needs this massive amount of power. How's that working out for you guys right now? It's not. It's a failed system. I don't believe that Jesus Christ makes failed systems. Maybe other people do, I don't. You stated, Leo thought Chalcedon

was not at liberty to judge his tome. I mean again, letter 120 says it right out, it ratified the tome. It's been received by the whole judgment of the church, I mean even here in the Acts, I mean it's just, it's like page after page after page of them stating that they judged the tome. You know, let me see here. Let me just read some of these. I'm trying to find the fourth session, where the bishops are like, you know, John, the most devout bishop of so and so, according to my understanding and meaning of the latter of the most holy Leo, bishop of Rome accords with the creed of 318 and the 150 who subsequently assembled at Constantinople, with the decrees of Ephesus relating to the deposition of the impious and storious, and under the leadership of the most blessed Cyril,

and I have subscribed to the same latter. Or you'll see these statements like Patricius, the most devout bishop of Tiana, said, We have found the letter of the most holy Leo archbishop of Rome to be in harmony with the 318th Nicene and with the 150 holy fathers who met subsequently at the imperial city and I have signed. Or of Eusebius, the most devout bishop Dora Leom, he's a prominent figure at Calistodon He goes I Judge the letter of the most Holy Leo archbishop of senior realm to be in accord with the definition of the

318 who assembled at Nicaea with the council the 150 who assembled in the great city of Constantinople and with the council that took place at Ephesus under Blessed Cyril and I have signed it. have another one here Marianas Bishop of Sinada he says, you know accords with Ephesus accords with Nicaea and Therefore I have signed it another one Epiphanius as I could recognize from the reading of the letter of the most God beloved Leo It agrees in meaning with the definition of the 318 fathers. In fact, there's about 20 pages of this. That sounds like a judgment. That doesn't sound like, well, you know, I submit to the Holy Fathers.

No, I judge this to be true. They're putting it through the ringer. Now were they free to just edit it down? No, you're not free to edit down someone else's statement. They have to edit it for themselves. And St. Leo inadvertently does that by writing later on the so-called second tome, where he clarifies what he meant, because there are parts of the tome that are poorly worded. There are parts of it that are

very poorly worded. You comment on Vatican 1, you state that you confuse the Pope being approved to speak infallibly with the Pope speaking infallibly. Okay, so I mean, I find it ironic that you state that we don't have, like looking in the first millennium for examples of the Pope acting on his own as some sort of distortion. And you take this minimalist approach, but there would be no reason to create a so-called minimalist approach to the evidence if the so-called maximalist approach worked. But because you turn the maximalist approach, that being the claims of Vatican I are largely impossible to prove from the historical data,

you have to move the goalposts by dumbing down the standard and admit the disqualification of your own position. I mean, if you can bring up all these examples of Vatican one the first Millennium, why wouldn't you I Would if I could do it, I'd be Catholic. I'd still be Catholic I'm not but you know, that's just me Let's see what else Okay, you talk about st. Galatius, he says the canons direct everything towards Rome. That is correct. I just so happen to have a book that you probably have as well.

It's an excellent book. Okay. He does comment on that in letter, let's see, let's read this. But as for Euphemia, who says that Acacias could not have been condemned by one person, I am surprised if he does not realize his own ignorance himself. Yes, he does not realize that Akakias 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 Akakias's 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, in whatever place they like, according to the rule of the very heresy that has previously been condemned. Indeed, Achacius was not the inventor of a new, and he goes on, okay, then he comes to this part, he goes, against us, they oppose the canons, while they do not know what they

are talking about, they make known that they themselves are against the canons by the very fact that they avoid obeying the first see when it recommends what is sound and right. They are the very canons that intend the referral of appeals from the entire church to the see for examination. He is referring to the Sardachan canons. But that these people have ordained henceforth on no occasion should be appealed by the see. So once someone appeals to the Sardachan canons, if Rome goes, no, this person deserves a retrial, you can't say, no, they don't. You

have to give them the retrials. That's part of the system. I mean, I mean, we don't want to be Somalia, right? There are rules. Okay? But that these people, Vordain henceforth, on no occasion should be appealed to the sea. And by this means, the canons have instructed that this see is to sit in judgment on the entire church, to pass nobody's judgment, nor ever to be judged by its judgment, and they have determined that its verdict should never be undone, and ordered instead that its decisions are to be followed. He says that in the context of the Sardachian canons.

And in this very case, Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John and the rest, not just one, but certainly several bearing the title of bishop, were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See, even Achikius himself, who is conspicuous as a creator of this injunction, is a witness. This fact is clear that just as in particular the apostolic seed did this in Conformity with the formula of the synod So it is most certain that nobody could resile from it So part of synod ality is that once the head of the synod signs off on something

Okay, the members present it to him. He signs off on its law then Okay. Yeah, you can't just say like well, we're not to go with what the head of the synod says after he's approved it. But in the case you're talking about, referred to, he's referring to Sargon Canons. And so yes, in order to undo something that Rome states in this context of a synod, in order to undo a council that the head of the synod approves, you need the head of the synod to undo it with you. This is conciliarity. Or conciliar theory. Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. Sure, you got eight minutes and 20 seconds. I don't want people to say we're on equal here. Oh, right. We're on the same pay. Okay. All right

Oh, yeah, actually, there's a few more did say hormis does say all the belly need to be My handwriting is so bad to confirm to papal claims. Okay Yeah, I really do believe that he left out of the requirements the papal claims because they were just chest thumping. They were just rhetoric And if they were really that crucial, why did he just remove them? It's not like, say, the Eucharist, which he just didn't even mention to begin with, but suddenly these just disappear. It's not that people would need to oppose them, it's that they just understood them to be rhetoric. I mean, keep in mind, they know their own cultures fairly well. In the same way that you say, like, you know, oh, I always, well, you know, I always, you know, whatever.

I know you don't, you know, every single time. No. And about Vigilius reissuing the decrees of the council in his own name. Yeah, he'd been absolutely humiliated. He was desperately trying to save FaZe, and Vigilius was a horrible person. He was absolutely awful, his predecessor starved to death. Not even I would do that.

Well, I shouldn't say that about myself, but I'd like to think I wouldn't, but anyway. You state that Virgilius never states he was wrong. Again, he was desperately trying to save face. I mean, he had just been humiliated by a council. What's he going to do? I'm sorry guys, I really screwed you. You have a lot of these bishops like they adore it they adore it It's not until he's absolutely forced to by Calcedon that he actually anathematizes his friend. Astoria's He tried to fly under the weather. I think at the end of the council they were like, alright

But Julius learned his lesson these on the same page now just let it go, you know The consequences to North Africa for excommunicating the Pope Send these on the same page now, just let it go. The consequences to North Africa for excommunicating the Pope. Yeah, they rejected the fifth council. It was a schism of the three chapters. Wasn't until the seventh century that it was actually healed. Was it seven, eighth? Yeah.

That it was actually healed, that schism. I think there were some holdouts up into the early 700s, but I'm not sure So it sounded like you were confusing the consequences of excommunicating the Pope for a stance on the three chapters initially With the penalties for actually rejecting the Fifth Ecumenical Council. That's what sounded like to me. And you can comment on that later. And I'm done, I've got five and a half minutes left. So.

All right. Maybe we can add that to the 50 minutes at the end. Yeah, if it's going well, we will. All right, thanks very much for your opening and rebuttals guys, really appreciate it. We are gonna take a really quick break and when we come back We're gonna have 15 minutes of cross-examine each followed by 50 minute. That's five zero minutes of open dialogue So this will obviously be the more entertaining wait 50 or 55 point three point five point three

Thank you very much correction in the open dialogue. It was a fraternal. It was a fraternal correction I receive it. If you haven't yet, please like the video, please share it if you appreciate these deep dives into these different topics and we'll be back real, real soon. Any sinner is capable of being a great saint. And any saint is also capable of being a great sinner, a great sinner, a great sinner, a great sinner. The secret therefore of character development is the realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us, for good and for evil.

The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think that people who have virtue and kindness and other great talents just came by these things naturally. They had to work out them very hard. Any sinner is capable of being a great sinner. The secret therefore of character development is the realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us, for good and for evil. The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. for good and for evil. The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think that people who have virtue and kindness and other great talents just came by these things naturally.

They had to work at them very hard. I'm sorry. Any sinner is capable of being a great saint. And any saint is also realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us. For good and for evil. The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think. And you're back. G'day everybody, welcome back to the debate.

I need to let you know that there is apparently a gigantic Christmas parade just outside of the studio. So if you hear sirens or songs, that is why. But I think we're in a much warmer, much better place here. We're gonna be doing a 15 minute cross examination and each followed by a 15 minute open dialogue. Now I always feel like I need to state this, how is the cross examination different from the dialogue? Well in the cross examination the one leading the examination gets to

direct the conversation where he would like to. So if he feels like his opponent is stalling or answering the question, he can interrupt and redirect. And that's not considered rude. That's just the rules of the debate. So there we go. It's not as loud as it is in our ears. I'm good to go? Yeah, you're ready. You start. Whenever you're ready, you've got 15 minutes. All right. I'm good. All right.

Danny, in the synonical letter of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, accepted at the six ecumenical councils, Sophronius says that he attaches himself to all the letters and teachings of Leo the Great, quote, as if they issued from the mouth of the chief Peter, quote, close quote, and quote, quote, embraces them with all of his soul. Close quote. The six ecumenical council accepts Sophronius' letter. We also read from formulas from the formula of Hamishdes that the letters of Leo were to be accepted, that the council of 553, amongst a slew of names, Leo comes up in all his writings. Would you say that the Sixth Ecumenical Council's inclusion of Sophronius' letter commits the Orthodox Christian to the epistolary of Pope Leo.

Would you be able to reread the quotation? Yeah, quote, as he says, he accepts the letters and teachings of Leo the Great, quote, as if they issued from the mouth of the Chief Peter, close quote. No, I would not say that it binds us in any way, because I don't think that he's saying what you think he is. Okay, so would not say that it binds us in any way, because I don't think that he's saying what you think he is. Okay, so would you say that he's saying the writings

of Leo as he understood them were orthodox? Yeah. Okay, so if the council says we accept Sefronius' letter, and Sefronius' letter goes into great detail saying all the discourses, all the letters, all the teachings of Leo, he receives them as coming from the mouth of Peter. You don't think that that puts the Leo 9 epistolary on a very high shelf in orthodox thinking? It puts on an incredibly high shelf. The problem is I don't think that corpus says what you think it is. Okay.

What you think it does. Okay. All right. So, but but even in that case you can have a we accept all of this all of that and it is all give you an example okay. Well just you would you would put Leo's letters on a high standing. Well I would even without St. Sophronius saying that. Right. So I'm just adding Sophronius' statement, which is explicitly clear, and you've got a connecumenical council that accepts that letter, that puts Leo's letters on a different shelf than another saint's.

Well, yeah, I mean, it's on a very different level compared to say, like, you know, something written by just some random bishop. Now, if given the status of Pope Leo's writings, random right now if Given the status of Pope Leo's writings would it be a cause for reflection if in Leo's writings as Bolotov and Polzevsky said along with countless other scholars is Found the essence of Vatican one ecclesiology That depends on what they mean by the essence of it

Okay, so what we mean by essence is where there's a logical germ that if it's expanded, it comes out to be papal supremacy. I believe that you can take Leo's letters and you can't extrapolate that out. I don't think that's the way that they're necessarily going. But systems of power, systems typically go towards grabbing power. Sure. Alright.

In Sermon 5, Leo the Great says that Peter continues to preside over his seat in an ongoing, this is, I'm quoting him, an ongoing partnership with Jesus Christ, and quote quote the solidity which was which he received from Christ the rock Has also passed to his successors close quote. Do you agree with pope leo that the Rock strength that christ gave to peter Passes on to his successors from sermon five I mean, it was certainly saint le Leo's hope, and that's as traditionally what has been

believed is possible, but I mean, we've seen many examples of them not holding that. We even saw St. Peter himself not holding stable on numerous occasions. Right. But Leo, in Sermon 5, he says that the solidity that was given to Peter, the apostle, passes on to his successors. Do you agree with that? Yes or no? Well, again, I would say that it's inherent. It's in the office.

Whether or not the office holder intends to utilize that. So does it pass to his successors? Yes or no? It passes to his office, and the holder of that office... The person who sits in the office, does he get it? He can't... It's there available in the office if the holder of the office decides to... it's like baptism. Right.

You can be baptized, but if you decide not to utilize it and live a just profligate life... Okay, good. Yeah, we agree. In sermon three, Leo says that the very same solidity of faith in Peter that passes on to his successors is, quote, perpetual, close quote. And that which, quote, that which Christ instituted in Peter remains such that whatever Rome does rightly, it is due to Peter's work and merit whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his seat." Close quote at Sermon 3.

Do you believe that that endures perpetually? Would you be able to read the quote one more time, please? Yeah, that which Christ instituted in Peter remains, and then I have dot dot dot, such that whatever is rightly done by us is due to his work and merits, Peter's, whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his sea. Well, he says, and so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us. That's right, yes, conditional. It is. And then he goes, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications is of his work and merits. I mean, if I do anything good, glory to God.

If any of us do anything good, glory to God. Right, so you would say this is applicable to your child? Yeah. Really? Well, I mean, if my child does anything good, glory to God. I mean, if any good act comes from God, right? Right, but this is, these are, well, one is an anniversary sermon on the office of the apostle Peter in Rome. So, he's talking about prerogatives that befall to

the individual who sits on the Roman concession. The successor. The successor, Peter, right. All right, in his investigation of Leo's writings, Father John Meyendorf, in his book, it's called Imperial Division of Christianity, right, you recommended it recently. It's a very good book. Overall. Meyendorf said that for Leo, quote, the true center of eternal unity had to remain, of eternal unity had to remain, and indeed remained, as a rock embodied in the ministry of the successor of Peter in Rome." As Meindorf giving his understanding of what Leo communicated through his epistles, do you agree with Meindorf or do you disagree with Meindorf?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with it because I don't think that Saint Leo would say you had to be in communion with a heretical successor of his. Okay. I mean, if we ask Saint Leo, well, you know, in the future there's going to be this guy named Honorius, or this guy named Vigilius. Do you have to be in communion with him? You know, heavens no, absolutely not. Okay. Do you know any Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant scholars who agree with your reading of Pope Leo? To be entirely honest with you, I don't necessarily recall any, but I don't recall any one way or the other.

What typically occurs in Orthodox scholarship is it just copies Catholic scholarship and Protestant scholarship also has to copy Catholic scholarship The Anglicans need the Catholic narrative to be true In fact all the reform movement needs a Catholic narrative of history to be true in order to justify the Reformation They needed to be true as much as yes, I agree with that. But here's here's a statement I want to read from a fifth-century saint. We both venerate him, Saint Peter Chrysalogus, and this statement would encapsulate what I think is fulfilling my burden. Okay, so the question I'm going to ask you pertains to that. Eudiches reached out to Saint Peter of Ravenna, Chrysalogus of Ravenna, asking him what

he should do about the situation that he was in. And Peter responded to him saying that he should submit to Pope Leo because, quote, the apostle Peter, who lives and presides in his own sea, offers the truth of the faith to those who ask. for we in our zeal for peace cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of rome close quote now do you agree with this statement in its entirety that the prerogative is this divinal divine perpetuity of peter living and judging in his sea divine perpetuity of Peter living and judging in his sea. In the sea, yes, not necessarily in the inhabitants of the sea. So the Roman sea. The Roman sea.

I mean, it's still the first sea. It never ceased to be. It's just, you know. Right. So pertaining to that sea, Pope Galatius says, the apostolic see has often had the liberty, facultas, without a synod preceding it, to loose those whom a synod has unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a synod. And he gives us an example, the apostolic see by its authority quote condemned the oscarus and it dissolved the godless synod

That's Ephesus 449 and ordered on its own authority Chalcedon close quote so do which letter is that from so this is this is a letter This is letter one. No, this is a letter this is letter one no this is letter 13 well it's not in there it's unfortunately Neil and Alan didn't it's similar here in letter one would say well it's similar but I'm reading I'm reading from the Vornick's translation of epistle 13 and PL 59 dot 67 it's not in that book I can assure you but so this he's saying that he doesn't need a synod proceeding or proceeding, that apostolic has had right, the liberty to do this by the synod.

Do you believe that? I believe what he says, but I don't believe your interpretation. Okay, so what does he mean by not having a synod proceeding? Well, in those quotes earlier, he doesn't need a synod to condemn someone. He can do it according to the form of a previous council, like Chalcedon. Right, but he says without a synod preceding. So in other words, he gives us examples, situations that don't have a preceding log of a council. Can you read the entire quote again, please? Well, he says, the apostolic see has often had the liberty

without a synod preceding it to loose those whom a synod has unjustly condemned and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a synod. Okay, so I think letter one clarifies it. Okay. When he says proceeding, he's talking about the Pope holds a synod and then from there as the head of the synod, issues a decree.

He says, although the human law of the 30 years cannot be abrogated, that St. Athanasius was not thereby condemned by the synod of the East because that see did not agree to it or St. John Chrysostom or St. Flavian. He... let's see, there's no verse from that seed. Okay, so maybe it's another letter I'm thinking of. Well, feel free to just respond to this. What does he mean? Why is he trying to say that he doesn't need a synod in order to loosen or condemn? Well, he doesn't need that because the sardachan canon state he doesn't need to. Right, but his interpretation of sardachan could be different than ours. So the question is why is he excluding the need of a synod?

Well, we know his interpretation of sardachan because I read it during the rebuttal. Right, and he says his interpretation is coexisting with this, where he doesn't need a synod. Well, yeah, I mean, you can go to the pope and you can say I was condemned. Right, and he sees that as a sardic inaction. Right, so Bishop Eric goes to Pope Matt Fradd and says, I was condemned by a synod held by Patriarch Ubi Petrus. What do I do? And Pope Matt Fradd goes, well, hold up, you need a retrial. That's what the Pope was. He was a review court. He

could decide whether or not you went to trial, whether you deserved a retrial. That's what he's talking about. Yeah, but he does say that without a synod proceeding it and even after the convocation of a synod. So he's saying he has the power to absolve sentences that happened in a synod without a synod preceding related to that question. Yeah, that's the Sardegan canon. Right, but see that Sardegan canon involves the ability to act without a synod. That's what Dvornik says in his book 118, in book Rome and Byzantium he's and I'll ask you if you agree with this

He says this Petrine power extended also to the decision of synods and was not bound by them close close in other words he's He's saying Without the convocation of a synod he's able to loosen or condemn Yeah, I mean they can come to him and they can say, I was condemned. Do I deserve a retrial? One minute. Yeah.

Okay, very good. Okay, so let's... One minute, you said? Yep. You can, Eric, you can take as much time as you'd like. No, that's okay. No, not really. All right, do you believe that at the Vatican Council in 1870 that the Pope did anything

exclusively by himself? No, because the bishops knew that he... probably because the bishops knew that he would if they said no. Okay. He just dissolved the council. But you would agree that it was a council, there was votes, there was deliberation. Yeah. But do you believe that there's evidence that the people there believed in Vatican One,

the supremacy of the Pope, infallibility of the Pope? By the end of it, the majority, yes. Okay, so then you can have a belief in the papal supremacy without a specific singular action of a pope. Well, of course, there's two levels of ecclesiology in the Catholic Church. There's a conciliar theology and then there's an autocracy. Right, so when you require me to prove popes acting in a certain capacity in the first millennium, that's not my burden.

My burden is to prove that they believe that. Just like you just said, you believe Vatican I holds the papal infallibility and papal supremacy, and yet it was done in the context of a council. Well that's because they they teach those. So they make those plans. All right, so now it's your time, Ubi. You can direct the conversation wherever you want. You're welcome to interrupt if you see fit. And again, that's not considered rude. That's just part of the cross examination. So whenever you begin, you have 15 minutes. Okay. In 518, how long had it been since the bishop and clergy of Constantinople had been communion with Rome?

How long has it been? How long had it been? The year 518. Well, cases went out in 484. So 34 years. So speaking of the ecumenical patriarch John and all the clergy of Constantinople in 518, many of whom had been clergy in 44, right, and with whom Rome had been in schism for 34 years at this point, the emperor Justin states, we've decided that the requests of these men

should be referred to be attitude inasmuch as they have always been established as lovers of unity. I mean, for 34 years these people have not been in unity, but they're described as always loving unity. I mean, do you find that somewhat odd? Well, it's pleasantries. It's pleasantries. Oh, okay.

Flowery language. Flowery language. That's very flowery. Okay. Prior to Ephesus 2 and 449, there had been a schism between the prelates of Rome and Alexandria, correct? Over St. John Chrysostom? Yes.

Okay. It lasted quite a while. It was quite nasty, right? Yes. Okay. And it was led by two saints, St. Theophilus and, thank you, St. Theophilus and Saint Hormizdos, the Alexandrian clerics Dioskras and Chaeremon, state, Venerable saints of the Church of the City of Rome and Alexandria have always kept the peace, not only in the correct and stainless faith,

but which the homily of salvation was preached by which upon, sorry, I'm sorry, venerable saints of the church of the city of Rome and of Alexandria have always kept the peace, not only in the correct and stainless faith by which the homily of salvation was preached among them, but also in divine ministry. Had it always been, there's always? No. No, no, it's flowering language, okay. Had Justinian been benevolent towards the Nikkei rioters when he killed tons of thousands of them?

I'm not saying it wasn't called for, I'm just saying, would you describe as benevolent? I hesitate. You hesitate? Okay. benevolent I hesitate you hesitate okay wow that is really they don't hear it okay do you think that the Emperor Justin Justinian was benevolent towards Vigilius he was pretty hard on him wasn wasn't he? He was hard, but for the structure of the time, it was diplomatic with some harshness, yes. Okay, so he's pretty harsh on him, right. So, for by relaying false information, you brought the mind of the most Christian prince

to the point where his clemency, which has always been benevolent towards his enemies, was seriously incited against us. Vigilius writes, I believe it was Vigilius writes. So he says always, he's always been just, he's always been, you know, benevolent and, and kind. I mean, he doesn't strike me as that, you know, Justinian strikes me as sort of an educated, but rough, highly educated, but ultimately he's from a rough background. Um, did Theodore of Mopswestia die in communion with the

church or had he been a stranger from the church prior to his death? Pete I think questions were raising, but there was no official sentences on Theodore. Jared Okay. Pope Vigilius, I also anathematize the doctrines of Theodore and I anathematize Theodore, who was bishop of Mopswestia, holding that he was always a stranger to the churches and enemy of the Holy Fathers Now lest someone say well, no, okay. He doubles down on a letter to the Empress Theodora Stating I also anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Mops Vesta as always a stranger to the church and enemy to the Holy Fathers Okay, how many heretics had sat on the throne of Constantinople prior to Nestorius?

I know there's a few. Yeah. Yeah. Since the last time writing to the clergy of Constantinople, for as you know, up till now, you have had priests, meaning bishops and priests or bishops, for as you know, up till now, you have had priests, meaning bishops, and priests for bishops, for as you know, up till now you have had priests powerful in teaching holiness who never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed the Church of God in utter tranquility." Do you think that's correct? Not literally.

Yeah, okay. By the mid-fifth century, how many popes had had, like, heretical views? Yeah, this is a hotly debated issue. So I mean, there's questions related to the pontificate of Liberius and Felix, but, you know, there's both sides, yeah. There's been a few. Theodora, you mentioned this letter. Yes.

Okay. For that holy sea see speaking of Rome Has precedence over all churches in the world for many reasons and above all for this That is free from any taint of heresy and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever Sat upon its throne, but has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled And do you think he's correct I mean unless he elsewhere condemns another Pope so as you mentioned maybe he didn't know I mean he's out in the sounds like he's out in the boondocks when he writes I

mean can the constitutions of the church be destroyed constitutions yeah depends on what century you're referring to constitution. Constitutions then, no patristic man I would say would ever admit that that could be destroyed. Okay. Saint Samuacus to the Eastern bishops. But if the verdicts on the grounds that they are weakly established are neglected without danger, the substance of our credulity abides without any strength while our ancient constitutions are always destroyed by successive innovations obviously this is just flowery language this is just how they

spoke right um Utikis what role did he play in Ephesus 431? Or rather the lead up to it, the lead up to it I should say. Eudicus? Yeah. Well he's a court man. He had the ear of the imperial power. He was the emperor's confessor. Right. But would you say that like... So he, I mean, he had influence in us watching imperial directions. Okay. Would you say that early on, I mean, because he was obviously senile by Caledon, I mean, by really 448. I mean, wouldn't you say like Saint Leo says, you know, he's a befuddled old guy, he's losing it, you know? I hope I'm not charming when I'm that old. Well, actually, no, I don't. I don't hope I'm hairy. But he was Orthodox at one point, Eutiches. He was a big deal. He's a hardcore Surrelean. So we have this quotation from St. Leo. He says, now into this un-wisdom fall they

who, finding themselves hindered from knowing the truth by some obscurity, have recourse not to the prophets utterances, not to the apostles'les letters nor to the injunctions of the gospel but to their own selves and they thus stand out as a master of error because they were never disciples of truth for what learning has you to keys acquired about the pages of the New and Old Testament who has not who has not even grasped the rudiments of the Creed, because he's talking about the Homo Ussios. He states that, I mean, he talks about this group where they've never been disciples

of truth and he lumps Eudachies in with them. It sounds fairly odd. I mean, Eudachies was a guy who trumped up a lot of support for St. Cyril. Does the Catholic Church follow St. Augustine in all things? No, no. What are some things where they don't follow him? Um, infant damnation. This is the, his view on predestination,

I think today would not be welcomed in the Catholic church. What about insolent? No, he believed in delayed insolent, right? Right. Which, which forced him to hold some very odd beliefs about, uh, for example, he believed abortion prior to, uh, insolent was, was not homicide. Um, I mean very, you know, which, which was, you know, St. Jerome, I believe was on the same page. Uh, was, you know, St. Jerome, I believe, was on the same page. If you compare that to St. Basil the Great, who goes, it doesn't matter, it's all a

homicide. So in the comment, in the correspondence of Pope St. Hormizdos with the Scythian monks, Pope Hormizdos makes clear to them that the Roman church does not accept St. Augustine's views on grace, I mean, predestination and grace. And I wish I had the citation for that letter, I confess I actually don't have it. Can you say that again, Hormiz's letter? You know, letter to the Scythian monks.

Yeah, he says that, he goes, you guys are wrong, we don't have to accept St. Augustine's teaching on grace, teaching on grace. And it's in a paper by John Perreira called John Maxentius and the Scythian. Yeah, I'm familiar with it. I tried to pull it up so you get the actual citation. I apologize That's right But you know San Augustine believed it was a venial sin for couples to come together outside of fertile periods which make natural family planning Absolutely unacceptable, but here we have this section one of Constantinople 2

We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four councils and in every way follow the Holy Fathers Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John Chrysostom of Constantinople, Cyril Augustine, Proclus Leo and their writings on the true faith Now you might look at this and go well, you know, okay They wrote but all these authors thought they were writing on the true faith I mean, so did the fifth council follow St. Augustine's views on grace? No. I mean, they didn't comment on it, but they wouldn't have. I mean, did they follow his teachings on delayed and soulmate?

Did they follow his teachings on basically thinking that, that, uh, that, uh, you know, abortion before and soulmate wasment was a homicide. I'm sure Militant Thomas, by the way, is having an absolute heart attack, hearing me talk about St. Augustine. Can I answer that? Sure.

Okay, so what I would say is that it's true that the verbiage used, that we accept all their writings on the Christian faith, is they have no time to meticulously go through and think, you know, edit out what they don't accept and what they do accept. What I would say is Augustine's name up there, Leo's name up there, the rest, what those men were prominently known for in their writings, I think they're committing themselves to that. So it's a, yeah, and St. Augustine

was an amazing saint, I love him. Yeah but I mean You know he had my say he would have been the first to admit that I mean had you been confronted? Yeah But yeah, they're tying it to the essence. It's a generalities just being generalized by the year 553 Have the Emperor Justin? What had the Emperor Justin done that in your opinion had not preserved the peace of the Church and Orthodox doctrines? Justin or Justinian?

Sorry, Justinian. Okay. I apologize. My eyesight is not as good as it used to be. A lot of people don't realize that Justin came before Justinian. Right, he was his uncle. So what's the question about that? By the year 553, what had Emperor Justinian, Emperor Saint Justinian done that in your opinion,

had not preserved the peace of the church and Orthodox doctrines? Well, I think that the way that he manhandled the hierarchy in getting the edict against three chapters past was, I do think it was circumventing the liberty of the church. And he was almost as brutal in getting the three chapters combination passed as getting the libellus of Hormizdas.

He was, yeah. He was very brutal. If you read the Syriac accounts, it's pretty intense. Council of Constance and Opal II, there has now been plainly revealed the mind pleasing to God of the pious and most serene Emperor who has always Done and does everything to preserve

Holy Church and the Orthodox doctrines and who sent the documents that have just been read speaking of the Julia the Condemnation three chapters and who sent the documents that have just been read and which themselves show as has escaped no one." I love that. That the Holy Church of God was formed from the beginning to the impiety of these chapters. And by the way, for all the citations, I will post this with the citations on the website in the coming days. I mean, it seems kind of odd that they just like, it's a lot of always, it's a lot of never, it's a lot of absolute statements. I mean, it's, I don't think these guys were disingenuous, it was just how they were speaking, wouldn't you agree?

That's right, yeah. And you know, taking into consideration that there had been popes who held views that were heretical, I mean, don't you think that that cheapens the, you know, the sea of Rome always in Hormizdos? Well, it all depends, right? Because they also use language like that in reference to Christ, Mary, the Church. Right, but in this case, they're talking about historical events, and Hormizdos is talking about historical events. Sure, but when he ties it into promises of the Scripture, then the application has to

be real. It's not special pleading because it would be special pleading to say, well, they generalize and they can't be taken literally in all these other writings. Therefore, whatever they say about the church, Christ, Mary, the saints, also has to be. Again, in this case, they're talking about history and homilist also talking about history.

Right, but divine history. It's talking about what the Holy Spirit has done through the churches. Right, and these guys are talking about what the Holy Spirit has done through the churches. Right, and these guys are talking about what the Holy Spirit has done through the churches. Always, always, always. That's right. So, I mean, okay, so in your case... One minute remaining. Oh, thank you. So, in this case, I mean, when taking into account that there had been heretical popes, I mean, I don't see how you can maintain that the always there should be the exception. Yeah, we don't. I mean, look, I believe Honorius was a condemned heretic and I believe Vatican one.

Right. Well, I'm just saying earlier than it, I mean, there had been popes who were heretics. So the sea of Rome had not always been free of the taint. I don't know if Hormiz does would have actually believed that the heretic sat on the throne. I don't know. Okay. So in that case he was just wrong. Perhaps. Perhaps, yeah. All right, I'm done. Thank you, Derek. All right, thank you very much, fellas. We are going to move into our 50 minute discussion. 55 minutes.

I know you've been looking forward to having this conversation, Eric. I know you have as well. Is it 55 or 50? Just, I'll tell you in a second. So I would like to begin by asking a question and then I wanna let you guys free range, okay? And the question is. I'm sorry. It's okay.

Steel man each other's position. We'll start with you, Ubi. Steel man Eric's position. Eric, I'll have you then steel man Ubi's and then we'll continue on with the 50 minute. And if it starts to get into the weeds, I'll interrupt, but I hope not to. I'll let you guys have this time on your own.

Go for it, Ubi. Okay, so Eric's position is that of Vatican One, which is that the Catholic Church can work on a conciliar level or it can work on an autocratic level. Ultimately, that the Sea of Rome and its inhabitants are different people, but that the inhabitant of the Sea of Rome or the holder of the Sea of Rome and its inhabitants are different people, but that the inhabitant of the Sea of Rome, or the holder of the Sea of Rome, receives the prerogatives that St. Peter lives continually in the successors in the sense that he keeps them from going

astray. Furthermore, Eric's position is that there will be absolute chaos if we do not have this figure who can, as they see necessary step in and sort things out would you say that's an accurate assessment of your position yeah should I keep going or if that's sufficient feel free to give yours yeah I think to steal a man his position I would say that papal infallibility seems to be put up as this ultimate security. Kind of like when the brink salesmen, or whatever company is popular now selling home security, they come and they advertise security.

You know, and they say, oh, you know, if you buy this package, this package, this line will never be crossed. And so papal infallibility does come out and it advertises itself as this security. And yet, like Denny brought up, he brought, how is the church today looking? How is this principle of unity looking? Catholics are up against the wall and trying to show,

well, yeah, the line seems to have been crossed here, but infallibility is still true because if you get a few magnifying glasses you could see how the actual criterion has not been falsified. But I would say that to steelman Ubi's position, papal infallibility, if it's going to be a gift of security to the church, should be unmistakable and pristinely clear, never open to suspicion. And yet, we do, as Catholics, we do have to come up with explanations. And now, granted, you know, we do that with Scripture, we do that with everything, but I do think that, you know, Ubi, or sorry, Denny, get them. You can call me both. I've been called horrible names before, so I'm okay.

I do think it's Denny's prerogative to demand the corresponding clarity. We want Vatican One to be clear in history, we want it to be unmistakable, so to push it, to push it, say hey look you guys have this autocrat to help you guys right? All right so where's he doing it? Yeah so I think that that's I think that's a steel man. Well I'll let you guys go after it. That's not necessarily I mean well I mean in terms of the debate on on papal infallibility in universal ordinary jurisdiction, yes, absolutely. They need to be pristine clear.

They have to be. I think that there's just too many, I think that it's a runaway train as well. And I don't think it's supported by the Scriptures, I don't think it's supported by the councils, I don't think it's supported by the riot teams. Yeah. Well, I think something that you want to talk about and I want to talk about is what is the burden on my side? What is the burden? Because, you know, I'll be honest with you. I haven't listened to all of your recordings on me. I wouldn't expect you to, honestly.

Well, it's mainly because, and I know it's not your voice, and no offense to the guy who was speaking, but it was hard to follow him. So I just couldn't ever finish. But that was probably due mostly to my writing style. Yeah, anyhow. I noticed that you say, well, give me an example. Vatican I says that the Pope has these rights, these privileges, these prerogatives. Show me the examples. And so, I would say that there are examples all throughout history because when a pope answered an appeal, ratified a council, wrote a tome, whatever, those are acts of the successor of Saint Peter,

gilded with the authority given to him by Christ, which I don't believe is delegated to him, don't believe is mediated to him by canonical law, although the canons do reflect it. And so when you ask, hey Eric, give me an example, I can give you an example of the council of 681. That's there you see the papacy in action. Oh, but he's not doing it all by himself.

It doesn't matter because what matters is is what they believed about his position. Just like in Vatican I, you admitted that the pope didn't come out and say, okay, everybody shut up, I'm gonna make an excatheter decree. Right? They voted, he allowed it to go for months, they went back and forth, they were voting

on whether they should condemn certain books or not. And yet, you have this unanimity, near unanimity, and the Pope come together and they make a judgment on whether papal supremacy and infallibility is true in a conciliar way. Okay, if I may interject. Yeah, please. So, 1854, what happened then? The dogmatization of the, I can't remember, is the assumption. No, I think it's the Immaculate. Assumption was in the 50s. That's right, it's the Immaculate Conception. Yeah. Okay, so the bishops knew that it was Catholic teaching that you could, that the Pope could make ex-Catholic decrees when they met together in 1870-71, right? Yeah, but bishops believed good Christology before Chalcedon.

Well, some of them. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, there's a reason they had, you know, clerical advisors. But so I mean, the bishops at Vatican I, you know, clerical advisors that, you know, I mean, yeah. But, so I mean, the bishops at Vatican One did understand that it was a Catholic teaching. So it wasn't like they thought, well, the pope just has to make an ex cathedra statement about ex cathedra. That'd really be cutting off the branches sitting on. But you know, Pius IX was a very precocious person.

And so he went ahead and did it and then went, oh, geez, you know, people aren't really liking this. Okay, we'll call a council. There was hot debates about it. So in other words, it sounds like what you're saying overall that like say this act of the Pope ratifying a council is an act of infallibility. No, but it is an act of the immediate direct and universal authority given to Peter and his successor So it's just it's so by by showing examples of conciliarism You're proving Vatican one as long as there's details about his activity Yeah, so because because look you even admitted that Vatican one How do you know the people there believed in papal supremacy and infallibility? You just said

it. You said because that's what they taught. That's what they taught, right? That's what they taught or taught. Or taught, taught. In other words, that's what they decreed, right? And yet, if you take a fine-tooth comb and if you've got this very fixed maximal criteria, the pope has to be doing things alone by himself and it has to make it clear that he's not asking for help. He doesn't incorporate the compound of head and members. He's doing everything by himself and if I don't see that then we don't have evidence of papal supremacy and infallibility as a belief. Well I mean it just sounds like you have a like a pope of the gaps argument. Well, it's you,

you believe Vatican one upheld papal supremacy and infallibility based on their words, based on their testimonies. Well, also based on the fact that they hadn't broken communion with Pius IX. Right. Right. Exactly. How many years? So why couldn't I just go into the fifth and sixth century, find all this conciliar machinery, all these conciliar synodal acts, and with commentary that says that Roman participation has these unique attributes. And if those attributes match what Vatican I says about

what was given from Christ to Peter, It seems to me like my burden is fulfilled That's a very bold claim Well, I mean I can say that I have examples of the Pope acting alone There are a few I mean does Vatican one say that the Pope can't act alone. Yes Okay So if I told you that pigs can fly wouldn't she say well show me a pig flying I pig flying? I would, but if God told you pigs can fly, do you need an example? Well, I would need someone to confirm it was God. Okay, so once it's confirmed, then God says pigs can fly.

I'd say I've never seen one. Can you please show me one? Would you believe it if you know what's God telling you? I would say I'm having a hard time believing this. Can I see one? I would. I sympathize. Could you please make, you know, a babe fly? Yeah, I mean, that contorts reality. I mean, if we've never please make you know, babe fly? Yeah, I mean it can that contorts reality I mean if we've never seen a pig fly I understand but what I'm trying to say we've seen one thrown Yeah, so fall all that but here's the thing if you know

We want an example of a pig flying you say pigs can fly show it to me You said the Pope is infallible show it to me. But here's the thing if God we all we both, if God told you pigs can fly, and it's absolutely certain that God is the one speaking, then you really don't need any more information. I wouldn't, but I don't believe that the evidence indicates God says that. Right, of course not. This is a purely hypothetical situation. I mean, I look at Matthew 16 and 18 as an establishment of the episcopate. It is, it is, but I also. I mean, I look at Matthew 16 and 18 as an establishment of the Episcopate. It is. It is. But I also believe that, see, the Catholic Church, like you were talking about, Leo talks about the Episcopate as

highest. The Catholic Church believes that. St. Galatius. Galatius, yeah. And St. Gregory the Great also says that. Yep. But we believe the papacy to be a constituent reality of the Episcopate. So we don't have like another layer for the papacy to be a constituent reality of the episcopate. So we don't have, like, another layer for the papacy. Why is a papacy not a sacrament? Because the episcopate itself has that constitutional dynamic. So the only uniqueness about the pope's position is that physical locale of the Roman Church. Okay. So in other words, it's just the raw, the fact that he's the head of the synod is in itself in your mind a proof that a Vatican won? No. What I'm saying is that he doesn't need to be... there's no sacrament for the papacy because the Episcopate itself was created by Jesus with a head and members structure.

That head stationed is permanently stationed in Rome. So whoever gets elected to that see occupies the episcopal dynamic. Okay, but how does that prove the First Vatican Council? Well, it doesn't. It just shows why there's no need for sacrament. Okay. Because I've seen that argument before that the papacy needs a sacrament in order to confer papal and phallibate. I've seen it made, I should say. Well, I've seen Orthodox and Anglicans bring that point up. I don't find it a convincing argument that the papacy should be a sacrament.

I just think it's very interesting. If the papacy's prerogatives can extend beyond those of a patriarch to archbishops, archbishops, you know, to a metropolitan and so forth. I would assume that you would need to break him loose. You would need to break him loose from the... I cannot think with all that noise in the background. That is obnoxious I think I know what you're trying to say though, but you know, I think that the very letter I think is 10 or 14 From Pope Leo I think is pertinent to the debate here because he says that the apostolic pattern of Peter vis-a-vis the Apostles

serves as a paradigm for serves as a paradigm for the local church, the metropolitan, the patriarch, and then he says no one anywhere should be at odds with Peter's one universal seat. I just don't know how you can say, and I've heard you say this a number of times, that the Bishop of Rome is simply like the Archbishop of the world. Well, I can say it in the same way that it was said in the first millennium. Right. It was stated, but do you really believe that...

Well, what are the privileges of the Archbishop vis-a-vis bishops under him? He can call us in altogether. His permission is for you to ratify decisions to depose elections bishops for elections I mean, so so did Rome have that right in India Japan everywhere in the first millennium? No, but I mean again, it's the Pope behaves that way towards the patriarchs the Patriarchs behave that way towards the Source bishops in the same way than Archbishop could not go into a metropolitan's church It's it's, there's a... Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what I'm saying is, is do you believe the Bishop of Rome ratified

the Episcopal elections of patriarchs in such a way that Alexandria can't just choose its own? No, no, I do not. And that's a good point that you bring up. No, they... So in other words, the Archbishop, this whole thing about Rome as the Archbishop of the world, I don't think you would admit that the Pope of Rome could call a binding council of the whole Church. Oh, he could in the first millennium. He could. I mean, yeah, he's a heady. He'd go, look, we have to call a council, get together, and he would ratify or reject its decrees. But He'd go, look, we have to call a council get together, and he would ratify or reject its decrees.

But the situation is that he didn't have the money to do it. Well, here's the thing. An archbishop who calls a synod, if a bishop doesn't show up, he can appeal to apostolic canons to depose if they don't come. It would have to be the synod that's then called that would do it. He would ratify its decisions. Right. So you're saying that you believe, and this is kind of astonishing to me, so I just want to clarify.

Well, I'm occasionally in astonishing groups. Very occasionally, though. Yeah, you've proved that many years. We've actually known each other for years now that he's come out and shown himself, but anyway. Let's not use the term come out. It's really quite… Fair enough. Fair enough. So, you believe that the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium had the right to convoke an authoritative ecumenical council. Of course. I mean, how could you? I mean, he'd have a hard time getting people to come because he couldn't bankroll it, but his involvement was needed because he was head of the senna.

That's conciliar theory. Okay. So, in one of your videos you talk about, you know, people being canonically illiterate. There's one video I actually paid attention to where you said people who don't understand the primacy of Rome and Constantinople, Rome and New Rome, in the first millennium, the first millennium that don't recognize the real jurisdiction of Constantinople and Rome are canonically illiterate. Would you say that the Russian Orthodox Church today, which denies any prerogative to Constantinople, would you say that the Russian Orthodox Church is canonically illiterate? Some of its theologians seem to be. How could it be some? These are the decrees that were put out by

the Russian Orthodox Church. Which decrees? So the response to the Ravenna Statement and the response to the Archbishop L.P. de Foros' defense of it. The ROC on their official website has written a number of articles trying to refute the idea that Constantinople possesses the jurisdiction, even media jurisdiction, over anybody. So I've read their responses and what appears to be the case is they get hung up on the term primacy. In their view, primacy just means Vatican one. And Russians have

this habit of hyper focusing on something and then just running with it and they can't be convinced otherwise. So when you read there the reason why they don't accept Ravana, why they don't accept, but then they went on to accept Chieti. You know, I believe they went on to accept Alexandria too, that document. But when you read their reasoning, they're like, there was no primacy. The Pope never was able to, and then they give these examples that are effectively Vatican One. Was never able to do these things, let's say.

Well, here's why I can't accept that. Because in their arguments, they quote Eastern Orthodox canonical commentators like Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, which I understand, I think in one video you say that Nicodemus got it wrong, right? But Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who's a saint, I don't think Balsamon and, who's the other guy that starts Zonoros, I don't think Zonorous in Balsamon or Matthew's Chicharites were saints. We got Nicodemus, who is a saint, he says that the right to hear appeals from Canaan 9 and 17 and Constantine and Chalcedon is restricted to Thrace Asia and the environs of the

Patriarchate of Constantinople But but the Russian Orthodox Church appealed to that to say that whatever rights Constantinople has today It's to the limited Patriarchate of Constantinople not anywhere else. Well, I mean we have st. Augustine saying all things to a sense are not infallible Right, but what I'm trying to say is you made the claim that the Russian Orthodox Church is hung up on the word primacy But they're not just hung up on the word primacy in other words in their minds It's not just premise you've had a good one No I mean the argument primacy in terms of like that there was a universal primacy in the first millennium

And in the sense of like Rome they get hung up on that in terms of like Constantinople having jurisdiction outside of You know this limited right? Yeah, the Patriot kit of like Constantinople having jurisdiction outside of, you know, this limited area of thrice. Yeah, the Patriarchate. They do claim that, but they claim that because right now they're in a power struggle.

I mean, this idea that the Russian church is some sort of virtuous entity is preposterous, especially if they've slaughtered so many people in Ukraine. I'm not saying I support this whole Ukrainian church and whatnot, but the way that you handle that situation is through, it's not through bombing people. But I mean, the Russian church right now is in this major,

and Constantinople too, in this major dispute over who controls what. Right, but here's the thing. You have constructed an argument against a lot of things that I've written, and I lot of things that I've written. And I don't, I don't uphold everything I've written in the past, but you've constructed an argument that, hey, you don't need to, you don't need to take Ibarra's hermeneutic in the first millennium.

You can take, and we don't need to take those Orthodox who go through the first millennium and just say that Rome was the perfect equal with everybody else. No, I think that's also a proposal. Right, so you take this view where you want to take, you want to have a realistic perspective, you read the data, Rome has authority, Rome has jurisdiction, it has power, these are canonical prerogatives, you know, etc. etc. And you've made the claim that this is very simple, all you got to do is just see the bishop of Rome as a head of a synod And he's the universal large bishop over the globe

But the Russian Orthodox Church today which composes a great voice in the Orthodox spectrum completely rejects this Not because they think Constantinople is trying to be equal to Vatican one But because they think that Canon 9 and 17 of Chalcedon, Canon 3, 4, and 5 of Sardica, and some of the other appellate rights granted to some of the panorthodox synods in the second millennium, are violated by Constantinople's overreach beyond its own patriarchy. So what's going on between Russia and Constantinople is that the Russians want,

Constantinople claims that all of those territories outside of the traditional lands of the barbarians includes North and South America. Russia disagrees with that. Russia goes no no it's whoever settles them first. What's ultimately at play here is money because these churches back in the old country, they're broke

They make their money off of milking the American cash cow No one is arguing about whether or not churches and say Congo should be under the ecumenical patriarch or Russia because Congo doesn't have any money But I mean I've been I'd lived in Turkey for a while. I've seen how poor these churches are there It's like, you know, maybe a thousand elderly Greeks are now you look at Russia. I mean, Russia is not a wealthy country either. It's very poor. They, these, they rely on remit remittances.

Most of Eastern Europe does. And we have large diasporas. You send money back. I found out recently that just my parish sends over a hundred thousand dollars a year simply to the metropolitan of San Francisco You know, so so and then from there it goes to the Patriarchate, right? I mean, what do you think the Archons are? Yeah, they're an attempt to keep these churches that maybe there's only one service in them a

Year keep them going their churches that realistically it's just forget it. How are we on time? We have about 28 minutes 55 minutes Let's get back to disagreeing. I think I think going back to the whole burdens thing What would I just want to hear from you? You believe that there's evidence that the Catholic bishops in 1870 upheld to papal supremacy and infallibility, not because of any actions

they were pointing to, but because of a theological exposition of what Christ did in Peter. I mean, as it's, well, I mean, they, you have Gasser bringing up historical events, he brings up his three, I think it was. But all of those are like synodal issues too. Well, he just states that it wasn't something that he could point to. He says there's nothing I can really point to, but there's evidence that it was believed. Right. So, but what I'm saying is... From the first millennium to the second. Do you know any soul in the world today that would doubt that the Catholic bishops of Vatican One upheld supremacy and infallibility?

Not anyone reasonable. Right. Okay. So, but they didn't need to see an autocratic action to prove that. They saw one in 1848. Right, but that's something that they believed existed, right? And so the proof that they believed it is simply in that that's what they believed. So why couldn't we just go into the first millennium and look at the theological exposition that the fathers give about

the station of Rome? Because actions speak louder than words. So you're saying that a theological exposition could be given which specifies equivalent Vatican One claims, but subsequent actions retard it, contradict it, or interpret it, show it's application. Yeah, so in other words, if you know, if they make an exposition saying, hey, this is what the Bishop of Rome can do because he's got rights from St. Peter, this is of divine institution, anybody who disagrees with it is an alien to the church. But then if you see a month later,

they basically thumb their nose at Rome. Well, that means that they just looked at him as the head of the synod and not what they said. Well, it would have to be more than they just thumbed their nose, I mean, look at the German bishops doing whatever they want. I wouldn't say that the Catholic Church doesn't believe, well, I don't know if that's even been resolved or what's going on, but. It's not. I mean, you have to have more than just,

well, they ignored it and the pope was then negligent. You have to see a consistent pattern. The thing, though, is that in the second millennium, you have a sort of like pope creep, so it's, well, papal creeping, I should say. So, slowly, there was an infrastructure built really at the end of the first Millennium and Then throughout the second Millennium that led up to Vatican one

It's not like the Catholic Church was very conciliar and then all of like it's not like they followed this conciliar theory theory and then you know the the the Pope couldn't just come into any bishops' territory and defrock a priest or whatever, and then all of a sudden Vatican won. No, slowly they built up to this. It was the Pope being able to ordain all bishops worldwide, him being able to... Well, actually, I just don't see that any different than what happened with Pope Leo and Caledon. This sort of Pope creep? Well, no. Leo promotes the power of decision to a council.

So who's making decisions? All the bishops together. And yet he tells them, but you're not allowed to review the contents of the tome. Revise it. Review. He says it's not, he says in letter eight. They can't review it or they can't revise it?

They can't review it. Well, they do review it letter 82, which is the it's it's pope leo's letter to the council Which they read themselves out loud in that letter leo says That you are not here. I'll just pull it up. So that way i'm not going off of memory, but um He says Okay, he tells this is a letter he says quote He says the council is not quote to inquire

What must be held as it were as if it were uncertain part one or part two of the letter 82? So it should be involved as a part one or part two of the letter. No, so that's Well, I'm going from Price's volume. I'm not going from... Which page is it? So I have three different volumes. It's a page according to that. I think it's session 16 or 17. Which page though? Well I have letter 82, I'm quoting from Price's that's I just refer to Price's third volume Hmm, but if you go to the 16th or 17th session, you'll see the letter but any kind we could I could I could review this later, but

I'm sure we're gonna do some reviews of what we say. Maybe we could do a review together, but I Don't think Leo giving the power of decision to the council and then simultaneously saying, yeah, but you don't have the freedom to revise what I wrote and that this is what must be confessed. I don't think there's anything different than the power of decision that the Pope gives today to a council. Well, I mean, if the author, when the author composes something and presents it for approval, you don't have a right to just revise what they wrote. They have to do it. Right, but

George Democopoulos, I mean early in your work you referred to Democopoulos as a competent scholar. Well I mean in terms of like his work you know on Leo, no what was it, The Evolution of Peter, that was a very good book. His other stuff that I've read is like, he's out there. Right, of course. Right. But Democopoulos says this on page 63 of his book, The Invention of Peter. He says that Leo repeats what was a familiar theme in his correspondence with the East, namely that Peter's confession of faith guarded exclusively by the Sea of Rome is the measuring stick of orthodoxy." So why would Democopolis say that if, as you said before, Leo just, you know, was he was a head participant and he needed the compound of the members and the head together in order to make an infallible decree.

Why would Democopoulos say that? Yeah. I mean, he's, he's admitting that Leo already gave the measuring stick. Well, in Leo's mind you didn't actually even need a tone. It was just, I mean, again and again in the letters, he says, and I'll cite it here, he states, you just show Utekes the confession of Nicaea. Right, and you said, and it's a fair point, well, Cyril, anybody can say that what they write

is correct and must be believed, but what I'm trying to say is that Leo adds commentary to his writings. And Democopolis is commenting on Leo's commentary about his writings. He says, quote, Leo repeats what was a familiar theme in his correspondence with the East, namely that Peter's confession of faith guarded exclusively by the Sea of Rome is the measuring stick of Orthodoxy close quote and Democopolis all over Peter's confession of faith is a standard right but what but then the Democopolis says that Peter that Leo believed that Peter's prerogatives redound to the successors it's not as if

the patriarch of if the patriarch of Constantinople can... Yeah, no, no, I understand. So in the case of Peter's successors, again, it's like baptism. Baptism gives you something, it doesn't mean you're going to actually access it. But was Christ saying to Peter... Yeah, it was liberty of the will. Yeah, but was Christ saying to Peter, you, by the way, to the exclusion of all others in the city of Rome, well, but no, he was establishing the Episcopal.

Well, I would disagree with that. Well, earlier you said he was establishing the Episcopal. Well, I would disagree with that. Well, earlier you said he was establishing the Episcopal. But the thing is there's a there's the head dynamic, which is not diffused. But then St. Leo mentions that head dynamic and he states that everything, he is, you know, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Bishop. Sure. He says that the difference between those is due to the fact that there was Peter and the other apostles. Right, so there's a diffusive patronology, I've written about this recently. But he also believed that there was a singular dynamic in the Roman cathedra.

Yeah, I don't believe that. That's what it says in the letter you quoted. Sorry, I mean, I don't believe that he thought of some sort of like, Rome could do things entirely on their own. If he did, the Chalcedon would have been an absolute slap in the face to him. Well, that's important to bring up because over and over again, I've heard Orthodox

and Anglicans and others bring up the point that session where every bishop gets up and says, you know, I believe, I judge that the writing of the Most Holy Leo of Rome, of older Rome comports with Nicaea and Cyril's letter, Ephesus 431. They're doing that because the very issue at hand was there were people who were accusing Leo's tome of contradicting Cyril and Nicaea. And the imperial commissioners wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page in reconciling Leo's tome to the past. So when they get up, it's kind of like a formal action that the Council did not even instigate.

It was the Imperial Commissioners that instigated the need for everybody to get up and say this. So it was really a state matter. Well, okay, so every Akumakal council's a state matter. Right, but this very specific act of all the bishops getting up and saying that they agree, they were required to do that. Well, every council, they are. Right, but nobody there had any doubts about the question.

So when you're reading that, you can't say, oh, look look the next guy Let's see what he says. Oh the next guy. Let's see if he judges the tome now They were all already so they can't or what do I got to say? Oh You got to say that Leo's letter is in conformity with Sarah. All right, so they're all just yes, man Yeah, I would say that they were well They were they were not yes men in the sense where they disagreed and now they were forced to change their mind.

They were yes men in the sense that we've already accepted the tone before the council was even convened. And now we've got to go through this imperial process where the state commissioners want the record of our voices and our names. Well, there were a number of bishops there that did not actually accept it prior to the council. They didn't, that's right. And so then they bring them all together and they go, let's get everyone on the same page.

Do you accept it or not? Stand up and say it publicly. That's right, and they wanted their name. It was Speak Now, yeah. Yeah, I mean, Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace is what they were doing. Right, yeah. But back to, I mean.

So it wasn't an, you gotta make that clear, Denny, that this was not a ceremony where they were coming to give what they determined about the tome. They were just going through the formal... Well, no, it was a ceremony where they came together and they expressed what they had determined. Yes, but in other words, it's not like Leo's tome was up for revision, rejection, acceptance, ratification.

Well, you can't revise someone else's work. They have to do it themselves. Okay, or rejection. as long as they're alive Rejection reinterpretation, whatever you want to call it. They already saw the tome as sufficient fact in the sessions of Chalcedon the bishops went into a contention with the Imperial Commissioners Because the Imperial Commissioners being ordered by Emperor Marcian wanted to compose a new definition and the bishop was like why are you going to compose another definition number one one of the cannons forbids it number two we already have the tome then they said we also have Cyril's letters they thought that

they would just reconfirm these previous documents and the tome was one of them yeah and st. Cyril's letters were also on the 12 anathemas which they didn't end up proving until they didn't know counsel That's right. They thought that they thought they were accepted. They're included But what I'm trying to say is this was all done before the session where they were told Alright you you and you and you down the list of all 300 or whatever Need to get up. That's that's every session. You have to get up and sign you have to say no No, I'm talking about the session where they get up and because it's every session. You have to get up and sign. You have to say it. No, no, no.

I'm talking about the session where they get up and because it's quoted quite a bit. I run across people who quote your material and they say, look, they quote, they judged the tome. They went and said, I judged the tome. But it's, you got to put it in the right context. They were already adamant that the tome was sufficient. Well, they'd already judged it. Well, they'd already critically examined it.

The papal theory does not obliterate, it does not obliterate, is the word, the judging power of popes and theologians. We have to judge... Was Leo's Tom X Cathedra? I lean in that direction. I don't think I need to prove it for this debate. Okay, but I mean, we're discussing the mid-fifth century to the mid-sixth. All right, let's just go play, let's play along with the idea that it is. Okay, do you think it is? Sure. Okay, why did Gaston not cite it?

Because he followed Bellarmine and seeing it as basically the, this is the pitch from the head, and it was awaiting the compound authority of the other bishops. There you go. Okay. Yeah. All right. I have a question for you. Yeah. Can you center it on the mic, please? Center it on the mic. Okay. What's our time? We have about 18, 19 minutes if we give him his extra minutes. Okay. There we go. Thank you, man. Thank you, you're too kind. Do you think in the case of Saint Silvarius, he was deposed by Belisarius, he's sent to

Justinian, finds out, says you have to give this guy a trial, he's handed over to Vigilius. And Vigilius, he was a horrible person. I don't know if you can hear from the sounds of it, he was horrible. I mean, how does that work out? If Vigilius is the Pope but he's judging a former Pope, that means that the deposition of the former Pope had to be valid. If Vigilius is a Pope, if the deposition was not invalid and Vigilius is judging him, then you still have the situation of a Pope being judged by a non-Pope. I'll be candid with you. This is

something that I have not really had a satisfactory answer to. Okay. So I'm not really satisfied with my answer to that question. No problem. Yeah. Pop Agapetous, do you think that him excommunicating, what was his name? Anthemus. Anthemus, yes. Anthemus of Constantinople. Was that... how do you see that? I think it's the Vatican one act. Okay, why is that? Well, we have explicit detail actually. I can pull it up from the Latin text. Could you? Yeah, so the sleepless monks, they actually They actually specify in their appeal to Acapetus what they want, what they want Acapetus to do. I think it's in my rebuttal.

And they said, it's very interesting, this will be interesting for you because they bring up something that you've written about as well. Obviously, so for the listeners, Anthemis of Constantinople is a patriarch who questions, he basically refused to accept Chalcedon. He was a follower of Severus of Antioch. That's right. Severus of Heretic. That's right.

And so some of the bishops in Constantinople wrote, well, they wrote to Pope Agapetus who came physically to Rome and When Agapetus was in Rome these monks say We want you like Peter did with Simon Magus and Celestine did with Nestorius to give him an allotment of days To recant and if he doesn't recant, to fall under the deposition of your decree. Right, he was acting as a spokesman of the council. Right, but here's the thing. You see, this is a perfect example of a situation where you have a synodal framework, but a theological commentary which specifies immediate, singular,

unique, direct jurisdiction. Because they said, just like Simon Peter deposed Simon Magus. And then they put it... Can you read the quotation? Yeah, I'm trying to find it. And then they read, and then they specified Nisselestine and his ex-community, well, the allotment of days he gave to Nestorius as a precedent for what Agapetus should do to Anthemus. But at the same time when St. Celestine wrote that, he knew that he had everyone else on his side. He was speaking on behalf of them. He did, but like Pius IX. He said he had, you know, he believed he had the majority, and yet the theological commentary was a singular privilege. Well, I mean, singular privilege, I mean, in the sense of like speaking on behalf of others or in the sense of acting alone.

Well, it's a... A spokesman of the council has a single privilege. A finality of authority. Okay, so in the case of St. Cyril or of St. Celestine, that ten days that he gives Nestorius, it's never enforced. Well, it's because there happened to be an accidental interruption between the transmission of that excommunication and the convocation of the council in Ephesus. So the pope, and that's why Cyril of Alexandria was like, what do we do? The hammer dropped. How are we going to treat this new meeting? And he gives well off to St. Celestin as well.

Right, and then in Ephesus they close the doors to Eshtor. It's because the stories found out about it. He got the letter and then John of Antioch writes to him and says even an idiot could figure this out, right? But what I'm trying to tell you is that just because you have the presence of a synodal act you had other people in agreement That does not mean that we are devoid of evidence For the Vatican one prerogatives. Man, I can't find this. That's all right. So there's a statement here from Price, and I cannot read it in the eloquent

or elegant British accent he has, but he states in the Acts of the Second Ecumenical, or Constantinople II, speaking of Anthemis, and this is on page volume one page 44, he says the notion that Anthemis's depositions confirmed by the synod of Constantinople of May 536 and an imperial edict on the 6th of August 536 could have been reversed by papal decree is preposterous and the reason is that Uh, you have theodora telling vagilius, you know, look if you're willing to revoke that That's uh excommunication

You know could you of anthemis, you know, i'll make sure that your pope and price is saying You know theodora was hedging way too much on vagilius He couldn't do that. It wasn't going to happen. I found the quotation, by the way. Where, please. Yeah. So this is Monsi 8, 900 to 904, and I got it from, I got the translation from Henry

Simmons, his book, The Roman Sea and the Universal Church. It says, the monks observed that, quote, as the most merciful God had sent Peter, head of the apostles, to depose Simon Magus, so also he has sent you, Agioch, Zoraras, and those who think like them. Simmons, close quote, Simmons goes on, the monks urged Agapetus, quote, to do what Saint Celestine did against Nestorius, assigning him a limit, just as Celestine did with Nestorius, within which, unless he offers an orthodox libellus to your apostolic see, and to your beatitude, and to the most holy archbishop of the royal city, and frees himself from the disease of heresy, you most holy ones may decree him to be stripped of all pontifical dignity and

submit him to the condemnation of the heretics already mentioned." Now, yes, was this in the Senate? Yes. Yeah, I mean, to pose a patriarch, you need the patriarch's presence. Right. But what I'm trying to say here is that their commentary on what Agapetus was empowered to do is rooted in what Peter was able to do to Simon Magus. Mm-hmm.

And we have that record in the New Testament. And any bishop is St. Galatius says who, according to the form of Calzón, according to the book of whatever. He does. Galatius does say that, but if you keep reading in that letter, he's only saying that to say, hey, kind of like when I say, hey, look, just for the sake of- Well, I understand he then quotes the Sardic and Canons which are about the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope. He sees himself as a keystone in the arch.

Yeah, but for Galatius, appellate jurisdiction is not exactly as how Sardica specified because John Talia, right? John Talia of Alexandria. He appealed to Rome by visiting Rome and then It was either Felix or Galatius. I think it was Felix, but Galatius writing as his notary Reverse the decision. Well, no you do have that because in the 9th and the 17th canons of Calcedon you see that Constantinople can have this like They don't okay. So in the Sardachan canons you have Rome acting as a review court and canons 9 and 17 of Cal Sedon you have Constantinople acting as the actual judge like they weren't just a review court, but they would decide okay You know, we're gonna call together a synod and and do this

So you start to see why shouldn't say't say that Constantine was the actual judge. Well this is way before, Rome was doing this way before Canaan 9 and 17. What do you mean, like who did they do this to? Well Pope Leo the Great. He restored people without a review court. Leo? Where, who? Theodora, right? No, not St. Theodora, this is is North Africa There was an appeal from the North Africans. It's in New Advent in that book. I just can't remember the letter Lucipinus I think is the name

He had submitted a bunch of appeals to Rome and then Leo wrote back and said hey There are some things that we're gonna allow you guys to to review wrote back and said, hey, there are some things that we're going to allow you guys to review, but in particular, these bishops were restoring them before you guys even have a chance to look. North Africa is also directly in his sphere. No, no, just shortly after that, just shortly before that, there was a question on whether Rome could do that. Yeah. Under Apiarus. Yeah, it was decided that eventually it was decided that they could, even though, even though North Africa said,

no, you can't do that anymore. Yeah, they flip-flopped on that. But, yeah, I mean. Right, but you can't use that Africa was directly under Rome. I mean, the canons are still the canons. We're talking about Sardica, right? It was a Latin-speaking area.

All I'm saying is that you have Rome judging matters before review, way before Canon 9 and 17. Because the Sardachan canons appeal to a broader area than just the Latin West. Yes. In the case of North Africa, that is the Latin West. And so you can, in a patriarchy, appeal directly to the patriarchs. So then would you say Pope Leo's handling of the situation in Arles with Hillary? Well, Gaul was part of the sphere. So you wouldn't, so you, okay, let me just get this straight.

So Hillary of Arles. He's a patriarch of the West, right? Right. That's fine. Yeah, sure. We can preface that. Yeah. I forget the name of the dude that was purported to have married before he was

Became a bishop. He appeals to Leo because Hillary deposed him. Okay Pope Leo restores the guy without a review court, right and All the commentators I read just try to point out that Hillary I mean that Pope Leo was violating his Sardachan limit. Well, he probably had the Roman Synod look out, and the Roman Synod makes a decision in the name of its head. The other thing is that in the Sardachan canons, you can't, let's say this guy is deposed by Hilary. Leo gets the appeal, and Leo goes, okay, you until we hear this and sort this out until it's heard, you cannot replace him with anyone else.

That's not what he did though. He gave him his job back and he required Hillary to accept that. Well again, this is also, I mean it's in Leo's sphere of influence. Anyway, I mean, what do you think about the fifth ecumenical council, 553? Do you believe that they could have finished an ecumenical council without Pope Vigilius? Well, they did. And the way that they did it was by taking writings of his from previously and saying, look, he actually signed off on this.

Now, if you follow conciliar theory, you have to have everyone involved. Right. But what I'm saying is, do you think that by session seven, when Vigilius is out of the picture, that the the patriarchs there believed that they could just finish and dogmatize their decrees? A universal decree? Yeah they did and we know because they did and I've heard you say you spoke to Father Richard Price and he said that the bishops definitely thought they could. But Byzantine history does not believe that. The saintly Byzantine tradition of the East does not believe that. The saintly Byzantine tradition of the East does not believe that. What does St. Terasio say at the Seventh Ecumenical Council when the four patriarchs made a universal

binding decree? So you're referring to Cyril's life of Sabbaths. No, I'm referring to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Yes, and they quote from Cyril's Skypotholis' Life of Sabbath. Okay. They're quoting Cyril's Life of Sabbath, and in that quotation, Cyril is talking about the four patriarchs in Constantinople, the patriarch of Jerusalem being absent.

So. Well, he sent delegates. He did, but the Patriarchs... I mean, he was represented there. Right, but you're misquoting the Seventh Ecumenical Council. No, I'm not misquoting it. Yes, you are. You just said that Taurasius said that the four Patriarchs without Vigilius...

No, I didn't say they said without. I just said that he said the four Patriarchs. Well, there's one missing. Now his legates have to be there. He means by the four is Vigilius, Eudiceus, and the patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch. The patriarch of Jerusalem wasn't there. So in the case of Leo, okay, no pope ever, except for Vigilius, ever attended an ecumenical council. That's right. Would you say that the except for Virgilius, ever attended an ecumenical council. Would you say that the pope and the patriarchs affirmed an ecumenical council? Would you say that's out of line? Well, the pope wasn't there, so we can't say the pope approved it. Well, what I'm trying to say is that the pope

doesn't need to be there. That the pope not physically being there. Would you say that that hinders its accomplishment? No. Okay, so we know that Jerusalem sent delegates, those delegates approved. Right, but what I'm saying is you're quoting the Seventh Ecumenical Council incorrectly. No, I'm not. Yes, you're quoting the state where Tarasius brings up the life of Sabbath. No, he doesn't. I don't… It's in Price's book. Well, this is the fifth and this is the fourth.

Oh, I'm sorry, Nicaea too. Yeah, Nicaea too. Yeah, there's dark blue. Yeah, Nicaea, in Nicaea, it's page 148 I think, they bring up the statement that Cyril of Skypothelus makes in this- Well, he says it at several points. He goes, when the four patriarchs- And those four patriarchs are vigilious- No, he doesn't say who they are.

Yes, he does. I'm going to pull it up right now. And then, and then in the life- Well, maybe he does, it's not a quote I'm aware of, but I mean... In the life, I have it all here, I can point it out if we have time. But the one particular disciple of Eudiceas of Constantinople who did his vita, he writes about the presence of the four patriarchs in Constantinople, presence of the four patriarchs in Constantinople, and he specifically omits Ustachius of Jerusalem. So how do you know that? I mean, I'm going to have to see the actual text. That being said,

at the fifth council, what occurs is that they go, because in the past, the vigilius has condemned the three chapters, even though he's wavering back and forth on it, we can take that statement, his commitment earlier, and we can make that into his ratification for it. And that's how they get through it. That didn't satisfy Justinian. It didn't satisfy anybody. Well, Justinian didn't like people disagreeing with him. Right, but what I'm saying is the council didn't grow feet yet because we still had

to wait for Pope Vigilius's... Well, they closed it and issued the decrees. They did because they didn't know what the Pope was going to do. But when... Well, I don't think at that point they... These are people who would just excommunicate a Pope. They didn't seem to really care what the Pope would do, because they had his commitment to condemn it.

Well, understand, the way that this whole controversy started was Justinian threatened all the patriarchs. So, if they... Emperors always the patriarchs. The emperors always threatened patriarchs. They did, they did. But when they issued that excommunication of Aegellius, I don't think we can say that that was completely done freely. They all knew what was going to happen if

they said no. If they said no, we're not going to do that, Justinian would have just replaced him. All of them? What else would he have done? Well, he didn't replace the Pope. No, because he knew it was according to his own code. Every decision has to be judged by the Pope. Well, yeah, and they say that Vigilius, because he had condemned the three chapters, even though he wavered, he took them.

Right, but that wasn't sufficient, because once the... No, they closed the council. It wasn't sufficient. Why did they close the council? Because they didn't have any… they had no idea what the pope was going to do. Well, they held out for a long time and they went, well, okay, he… they looked at that, his condemnation earlier on. They saw him waffling and they went, all right, well, he's decided it.

We're going to take his ratification of the… I don't… Well, allow me to finish. Allow me to finish. Good. They say, we're going to take his condemnation of the three chapters. Then what we're going to do is we're going to add it to our own here, and we're going to close this council. And they were just on their way. They didn't seem to care, because they

figured that Vigilius himself would be replaced and his successor, if need be, would just approve it. But that breaks the Byzantine... Why does it break it? Vigilius agreed that he didn't... Well, the Seventh Ecumenical Council says that it's the law of councils for Rome to ratify either through an encyclical letter or through his apocrysare at the council. Yeah, and in writing on several occasions Vigilius condemned the three chapters. That's... when Vigilius comes back at the end six months after the council they include his second constitution

As if it was a portion of the eighth session So I don't think that you can sustain your head and members apostolic canon 34 structure to Constantinople 553 before the second constitution of Vigilius. I don't think that you can do that. Did Vigilius close the council? Yeah. Where? Because Justinian took that... Justinian took his second constitution. Did Vigilius himself actually close the council? Historically, no, but Justinian made the axe in such a way that Vigilius' second constitution... He tried to make it look like harmony. He tried to make it look like harmony.

As opposed to the reality that there was not harmony. In order to fit the rules of a council. Well no, because the bishops themselves, it was left in there that because Vigilius has, you know, wavered on it. It was not left in the acts. How they closed it? That's about time. Do y'all want to wrap up or do you want some more time?

We can have some more time. I mean they Good for both of you. Yeah, it was like we have the five more minutes, right? Well that was with the five more minutes Oh, well, I got my ride coming about 15 minutes or so Let's do five more minutes and maybe as we in these five minutes the two of you might want to kind of present your overarching Okay, yeah your case. Here we go. Well, I mean they didn't leave it in the council So to say I mean But we have it in the council, so to say, I mean, but we have it in the conciliar acts themselves, that they closed it, they felt it was okay.

Justinian's goal is to reunite an empire. He doesn't wanna make it look like this fragmentation. Justinian's goals were always political. So the question is, had he not had that political goal, what would he have done? The answer is he wouldn't even have called the Fifth Ecumenical Council because he was trying to bring together the

monophysites. What I would say is to look at this comprehensively from a first millennium perspective. The bishops of each century almost tell us that without the ratification of the successor of Peter, I understand that. Eric, he keeps circling around. But I'm saying that because... Eric I'm going to say something. Constantinople five 53 was not an ecumenical council until Vigilius ratified. Okay, look in that debate with Jay Dyer, the first time I saw that, I thought you did very well because you stayed calm. And well, Jay, I mean, I love Jay personally, but he lost his temper. Okay.

I watched it a second time and I noticed that you were circling and you were stalling, and you're doing that now and I don't like it. Sure, ask me where, what do I need to satisfy then to get out of this circle? Okay, the circle is, well, one, you can just stop repeating yourself and you can actually go, okay, look, it's right here. Okay.

That's one. The other is this, how do the bishops themselves in the original Acts, how do they describe themselves as closing the council? They completed it. Yeah. So that's it. Okay. But here's the point I'm trying to make. And they could walk away with a good conscience. Well, they could. But here's the thing, you have all these other voices in the saintly heritage of the Orthodox Church that says you can't have a council, a legal council without the presence of...

Well, wait, in that fifth council what they were deciding was a condemnation of the three chapters. That was it. Vigilius had condemned the three chapters. They had it in writing. They had it in hand. And then they went, we are also going to condemn it. All the patriarchy has agreed.

It's done. Right. But no Byzantine chronicler reads it that way Just we have the original acts well they did photos of Photius of Constantinople wrote in his famous letter to Khan what the the Bulgarian King? Boris Boris the Bulgarian King sounds very he recounts all the ecumenical councils in Explicit detail it's a phenomenal document, and he goes through the ecumenical councils in explicit detail. It's a phenomenal document. And he goes through each ecumenical council,

Nicene, Constantinople, all those things, gives all the Roman Pontiffs who are involved. When it comes to the fifth ecumenical council, he actually notes that Virgilius refused to attend, but eventually ratified the council. So which means that nobody understood Constantinople 553 as a fully completed ecumenical council until Vigilius came around six months later. Except the bishops who closed it. Well

they didn't know what else were they gonna do? Close it? I mean they were like we have it in writing. He's okay we joined his with ours and it's done. Well it was I would say that it was inconsistent I mean, let's possibly inconsistent. So let's say a pope. Let's say a pope says You know X is anathema and then these other bishops go great X is also anathema And then all of a sudden the pope comes down with dementia Well, you don't just come down with dementia you give him he's going crazy. He goes actually you know what this obnoxious thing? It's not actually anathema What do you do? just come down with dementia. He goes crazy. He goes, actually, you know what? This obnoxious thing,

it's not actually anathema. What do you do? Well, it's very different because in this case, when Pope Vigilius anathematized the three chapters, it was before the framework of a council was even put into stage. Well, I mean, the other bishops also excommunicated or condemned the three chapters before a council was even put together. Right, so that's why then why did they need to gather in a council? Well, to formulate canons is one. Right, but Vigilius wasn't cooperative at that point. To make it more public, to also get a lot of the monophysite bishops to come. Yeah, well I don't know, I mean I'm satisfied. I don't know if maybe we should give our final... Feel free to wrap up and tell people where to find you. Thank you both. I started.

So maybe... No, no, you first, Suss. Okay. Yeah, big thanks to both of you. We have like a minute or two to do it? Sure. Okay. Okay. So, you know, I mentioned in my opening statement that I was looking at four things. The Council of Constant... Leo... Yeah, I think it was Leo, the Council of Calcita and the formula for Mistos, the Three Chapters controversy and the Laurentian schism.

And I think that in all of these historical episodes, what we have is clear testimony from saints venerated by Catholics and Orthodox that speak about the rights and divine prerogatives given to Peter and his successor over the whole church, that lands you in the neighborhood of Vatican One. I don't know any other church today that can comport with the data. We might be able to say, well it's not exactly how things are today in the Vatican. Yeah, I grant that. There is some distance, but if the magic number is 500, I think the evidence of the patristic era in the fifth and sixth centuries lands us at 470 whereas the Eastern Orthodox number would be like 300.

So in other words, I think the data lands you in the neighborhood of what the Vatican one called the Papacy. And I think that, you know, I think that was successfully shown. I don't think that we needed an example of a pope acting all by himself in isolation from everybody else. We just needed the theological commentary on what they believed about the privileges of Rome. Yeah, that's it.

Thank you so much for having me here today, by the way, Matt. Thank you so much, Eric. No, this was great. In my opinion, I do not see the Catholic case proven. I think that if you have a document stating that it has been the ability and it has been the capability, it has been the ability and it has been something that has actually occurred that the Pope can do, that's what satis called, nittum is, you need to have actual examples of that. If you're claiming a pig can fly, you need to have a pig that flies. And so while you can say, all right,

well you just need the theological framework, you then end up throwing Satis Cognitum under the bus because it tries to provide a physical framework. And that being said, you're not a dumb guy, Eric. You're not. You're a smart guy. And you know as well as I do that you would provide the maximalist interpretation if you thought it was possible. Instead, you've presented the minimalist position. Because I think that even in your opinion, in your heart of hearts, I think that you realize that only the minimalist position is available. And that being that there's a theological, or in your opinion, the minimalist position is that there's a theological framework,

but not actual historical evidence per se of the Pope doing these things. So that's all. All right, fellas, thank you very much. Thanks to everybody who's watching. If you enjoyed this debate, give the video a like, share it, and if you really liked it, feel free to subscribe to the channel.

God bless, thanks very much. Thanks so much.