Pints With Aquinas - Orthodox VS Catholic Debate on the Papacy w/ Fr. Patrick Vs Erick Ybarra

Episode Date: March 2, 2021

The Resolution is: The Doctrine of Papal Primacy given at Vatican I is true to Apostolic Tradition. Fr. Patrick (John Ramsey) was born in 1970 in New Zealand. He attended the University of Waikato in Hamilton New Zealand, completing Bachelor's degrees in Science, majoring in Mathematics, and in Law with honors. He then completed a Master of Theology in Orthodox Studies at the University of Wales, in 2010 followed by a Ph.D. in Orthodox ecclesiology in 2015 at the University of Winchester, England. He presently works as a distance tutor for the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England. He serves as a priest in the Western Rite deanery in the UK under the Russian Church Outside Russia. He has enjoyed engaging in Facebook discussions for a number of years after contributing to Orthodox blogs before this.   Erick Ybarra is a Latin rite Catholic speaker and blogger. Having graduated from the University of Central Florida with a B.S, he currently works for a global manufacturer in Technology. While entering University as an atheist, he had an encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ through the Reformed Baptist tradition. After spending years as a Protestant, he crossed the horizon to high-Church Anglicanism where he prayerfully studied the Bible and Church History leading to his conversion to the Catholic Church. He is a co-host for popular YouTube channel Reason and Theology and has made plenty of public appearances on Catholic social networks. His writings specialize in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and he can be found at www.ErickYbarra.org. He is a Husband and Father of 5 children, living in the upper Midwest of the United States.   Join my email list and get my FREE ebook! https://pintswithaquinas.com/understanding-thomas/    SPONSORS Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  Catholic Chemistry: https://www.catholicchemistry.com/    GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd  This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.   LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/  Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd  FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/    SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PintsWithAquinas  Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pints_w_aquinas   MY BOOKS Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9  Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4  The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx    CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform 

Hello and welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd. I'm glad you're here for today's debate. We have a debate here today on whether the doctrine of papal primacy given at Vatican I is true to apostolic tradition. And we have both Father Patrick and Eric Ybarra, who will be debating this issue. I'm not going to spend much time reading bios. If you'd like to read the bios of the two gentlemen, you can check that out below. But thank you so much, Father and Eric, for being here. Thank you for having me. All right, so we're going to begin with 20-minute opening statements. And so, Eric, whenever you'd like to begin, do you have your own way of timing this, Eric?

It's okay, I'll do it. I don't, but I think it's roughly going to be 20 minutes. No problem at all. All right, feel free to begin whenever. Thank you, Matt. begin whenever. Thank you, Matt. The question before us today is whether the doctrine of papal primacy as formulated at the Council of Vatican I is taught in apostolic tradition. Let me begin by defining the Council's definition. The Council's decree, Paster Aeternus, which means the eternal shepherd, referring to Jesus Christ, gives a definition in four parts. These four parts describe, one, the institution, two, permanence, three, nature, and four, infallible prerogative of papal primacy. I will explain each of these briefly. The institution. The council

states that the Apostle Peter was given a primacy over the universal church of God directly and immediately from Jesus Christ, the eternal shepherd. The permanence. In order to maintain the Church's Episcopal government as one and undivided, this universal primacy must be permanent as a perpetual principle of unity until the end of time, fixed in the bishopric of the Roman Church, according to the authoritative design of Jesus Christ. to the authoritative design of Jesus Christ. The nature. This primacy is universal and jurisdictional, or legally binding. This jurisdiction is immediate, direct, and ordinary over the whole Church of God. This is founded upon the fact that full power to govern the Church was directly given to Peter with no intermediation. As such, Peter and the person of his successors are the supreme judge of all the faithful and is free to exercise his authority at will. Infallible prerogative included in this primacy is the supreme power of teaching or magisterium. On certain conditions, the Pope can propose unchallengeable teaching that is protected from all error

and which must be adhered to with the assent of faith, the refusal of which would result in excommunication. My job is to present a case for how this definition of primacy is taught in the apostolic tradition. What is the apostolic tradition? For our purposes, we may simply say that apostolic tradition is the faith delivered by the apostles to the church to be guarded and safely transmitted by their successors, the bishops. The contents of apostolic tradition for both Catholics

and Orthodox are contained in divine revelation as given in scripture and tradition. Therefore, if the Vatican Council's definition of papal primacy is sufficiently implied in scripture and tradition, then this debate's resolution is upheld and demonstrated. Since I am debating an Orthodox Christian, I will be focused mainly on tradition, since in many ways tradition regulates the proper interpretation of the scripture. Therefore, I will be looking primarily at bishops, church fathers, and holy councils. Nevertheless, scripture does have three main passages which show forth the basic idea of the Vatican's definition. The first,

Matthew 16, 18, and 19. This is the famous passage where Christ is recorded as establishing Peter as the rock and foundation support for the edifice of the church he has built and gives to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which is the power of binding and loosing. A superstructure continually depends on its foundation for stability and strength. Ergo, Peter must have an enduring function in giving said strength to the universal church as long as the church requires its need. Luke 22, 31 and 32. Here, Luke records how Christ singles out Peter to pray for his faith that it may not fail. Once Peter is strengthened by the prayer of Christ, he is to strengthen the faith of his brethren. This signifies a Christo-Petrine dynamic where Christ fortifies his church through the faith of Peter and serves as a picture utilized by the fathers

to describe the Roman seed vis-a-vis the universal church. John 21, 15 through 17. Christ gives to Peter the threefold commission to shepherd and pastor the universal flock. This is seen in the command, feed my sheep. To feed sheep is a metaphor for governing the disciples of Christ toward eternal salvation. Now for some traditional evidences from the church's tradition. In the second century, we read from Irenaeus of Lyons that the apostolic tradition, as held by the Roman see, is a universal norm unto which all churches must agree this means Rome's perspective was at least supremely credible contemporary to Irenaeus is co-pictor who attempted to enforce the bind of

excommunication from the common union of Christ's body upon the churches of Asia. This shows a sense of legal responsibility, i.e. jurisdiction overall. In the 3rd century, Pope Stephen appealed to the Methanean text, situating Peter and his successors as the rock upon which the church is built, in order to legitimize his enforcement of the Roman policy on baptism in North Africa. enforcement of the Roman policy on baptism in North Africa. The 5th century Vincent de Lorenz, a saint cherished by both Catholics and Orthodox, corroborates that not only was Stephen correct in policy, but also in authoritative procedure over his interlocutors. That is from the 6th chapter of his Commonatorium. Concerning the event with Pope Victor in Asia, the late Orthodox Archbishop and theologian Stylianus Harkinakis states the following, quote, it was at this point that the

differentiation between the Catholic Church of the West and that of the East began, close quote. That's from his Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, page 146. Orthodox theologian Father Laurent Klinowork, in his book, His Broken Body, states the following. Quote, one could therefore argue that the great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen, and remained underground until the ninth century. Close quote. That's page 155. Clearly, therefore, Victor and Stephen, both saints in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, gave the impression of a primacy of universal jurisdiction. In the 4th century, Eastern provincial councils were overturned by the annulments enacted by the authority of the Roman court.

The Council of Sardica insisted that such was appropriate since the Roman see, as the see of Peter, was the head of all bishops in East and West. Athanasius the Great was present and subscribed to its decrees. This clearly shows legal authority of Rome's disciplinary and doctrinal court in light of a continued possession of Peter's primacy. That this primacy was held superior to even councils is clear from the testimony of Pope Innocent I, who wrote the following in 416 AD, quote, whatever is done, even if it be in the distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this sea, that by its authority, the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, close quote. Clear evidence comes further from the presbyter Philip, who stated at the Council of Ephesus 431, which is ecumenical for both Catholics and Orthodox, that Christ divinely singled out Peter as the rock foundation, bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, head of the apostles, and the whole church, who, quote,

quote, today and forever lives and judges in his successors, close quote. This was read aloud in both Latin and Greek and was inscribed into the official acts of the council. When Emperor Theodosius II convened the Council of Ephesus in 449, Flavian of Constantinople appealed over its court to the throne of Peter in order to annul its decrees. This is perhaps the clearest instance of a saint appealing to the Sardic and privilege of Rome in order to check the decrees of an ecumenical council. In the third session of the Council of Chalcedon, the official sentence of excommunication against the oscaris the patriarch of alexandria states that pope leo through the council quote together with the thrice blessed and all glorious peter the apostle who is the rock and foundation of the catholic church and the foundation of the orthodox faith has stripped the oscaris of his episcopate, close quote. Clearly, the Matthaean text, which invested Peter with the universal primacy of jurisdiction, is here

understood to be living and active in the enforced authority of his successor, Leo the Great. In Sermon 51, Leo states that of all things which are petitioned in the church, quote, only that should be ratified in heaven, which had been settled by the judgment of Peter, close quote, i.e. Rome's judgment. This is why Leo felt qualified to annul the 28th canon of Chalcedon, quote, by the authority of St. Peter, close quote, as from letter 105. Though there are many pastors and bishops in the universal church, says Leo in letter 14, quote, all should converge toward Peter's one seat, and no one anywhere should be separated from its head, close quote, i.e. the apostolic seat of Rome. In the 6th century, a 30-year schism between Rome and the Eastern churches was healed by a universal subscription to a formula put down by Popo Amistas in 519. In that formula, it was clearly enunciated that the divine promise of our Lord to protect his church

was through the instrumentality of preserving Peter's faith in the teaching ministry of the Apostolic See of Rome, which is the rock and solidity of the whole Christian religion. Countless bishops of both East and West signed this formula and returned into full communion with the Church. Concerning this formula, the late and great Orthodox theologian, Father Alexander Smeiman, who was a historian in his own right, states, quote, characteristic of this eternal compromise with Rome was the signing of the formula of Hormizdas by the Eastern bishops in 519, ending the 30-year schism between Rome and Constantinople. The whole essence of the papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed than in this document, which was imposed upon the Eastern bishops, close quote.

That's from his The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, page 240. At the Council of Lateran 649, the Eastern Bishop Stephen of Dor, a unique disciple of Sophronius of Jerusalem, described how he and Sophronius were of the mind that in order to squelch the monothelite heresy in the east, they must appeal to the Roman sea, quote, that rules and presides over all others, I mean your sovereign and supreme sea. It has been accustomed to perform this authoritatively from the first and from of old on the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority for the reason evidently that the true great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted alone out of all with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but also because he was the

first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole Catholic Church. As the text runs, Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep. And again, because he possessed more than all others in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakable faith in our Lord, he was deemed worthy to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sakes with power and priestly authority over them all. Close quote. That's Richard Price, The Acts of the Lateran Council, page 143. Here there is an unmistakable usage of the three most famous Petrine texts of the New Testament to prove the supremacy and fallibility of the Roman pontiff. Maximus the Confessor was both present and subscribed to all the utterances

in this council. Maximus too, however, unambiguously held that the Romancy held, quote, supreme dominion, authority, and power over all of God's churches throughout the whole world to bind and loose, close quote. Obscura 12, translation from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in his book, Orthodox Christianity, volume 1, page 110. In the 7th century, Pope Martin delegated his patrion authority to John, a bishop of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, to clean up church offices that were seized by heretics in the East. The Pope states that John must, quote, correct the things which are wanting and appoint bishops, presbyters, and deacons in every city of those which are subject to the sea, both of Jerusalem and of Antioch. We charge you to do this in every way in virtue of the apostolic authority,

which was given us by the Lord in the person of the most Holy Peter, Prince of the apostles on account of the necessities of our time and the pressure of the nation's close book. That's Mansey 10, 806 translation from Thomas, Willie now Thomas, William allies, the CF Thomas William Alleyes, the Sea of Peter, page 120. Very clear testimony to jurisdiction being exerted in the East by virtue of the investments given to Peter immediately by Christ by a martyr Pope, highly venerated by the Orthodox

Church. At the Council of Constantinople, 681, Pope Agatho's letter was approved by the Greeks as the voice of Peter. In that letter, Agatho stated that the Roman Church, quote, had never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority as that of the Prince of the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the ecumenical synods have faithfully embraced and followed in all things. Close quote. He goes on to say that the teaching of Rome, quote, remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior himself. Close quote. And then cites Christ's promise to Peter in Luke 22, 31-32.

The late Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote, Agatho quotes the words of Christ to Peter in favor of papal infallibility, anticipating, as it were, the Vatican decision of 1870. Lastly, in the 8th century, Pope Hadrian I sent dogmatic letters to be read aloud at the Council of Nicaea, in which he states, quote, For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the apostles, who first sat in the apostolic seat, left the chiefship of his apostolate and pastoral care to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever, close quote. This was also read aloud in both Greek and Latin and inscribed into the official Acts of Nicaea 2, Sesson 2. According to Orthodox theologian Father Laurent Kleenewerk concerning Hadrian's letter, the Eastern bishops gave, quote, total recognition that the Pope of Rome held Peter's seed and that

Rome was in a unique way heir to Christ's promises to Peter, close quote. His broken body, page 200. By way of conclusion, I want to continue quoting Father Lawrence Klinowork. He says, quote, since the time of Stephen, 250 AD, the Roman Church has consistently taught that her bishop is the successor of Peter in a unique sense, and that he holds by divine right a primacy of power over the universal Church. This was expressed consistently and unambiguously by a number of popes commemorated as saints in the Orthodox Church, including such luminaries as Agatho and Hadrian. As we have seen, this ecclesiology was accepted by a number of Eastern saints, close quote.

Moreover, Father Klenowork states that, quote, Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Theodore the Studite expressed the view that Rome was the unique chair of Peter that would not fall into heresy, close quote. His broken body, page 213 for both of those quotes just cited. Again, Father Alexander Schmemann states, quote, the theory of the power, potestas, of the Roman primate was openly proclaimed in Rome in the era of the ecumenical councils. But the East, without ever really accepting it until the 9th century, never once expressed its non-acceptance or rejection of it in any clear way. When Catholic scholars now assert, on the basis of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, that the East recognized the primacy of Rome at that time, but then later rejected it,

it is rather difficult to answer the charge on the basis of formal historical evidence, since one may in fact conclude from the history of those two councils that the Greek bishops admitted special prerogatives to the Roman bishop. Close quote. That's Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, page 240. From the statements adduced by saints and holy councils, many of which are recorded in the texts of the highest ranking books by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is sufficiently implied that the Church of the First Millennium believed that Christ set Peter over the universal church with a primacy of jurisdiction, as the supreme judge of all the faithful, and capable of issuing infallible doctrine that cannot be challenged by any human power.

The definition of Vatican I, therefore, is well within the bloodstream of apostolic tradition. Thank you very much, Eric. Father Patrick, your opening statement. Right. statement right at Vatican one as Eric has already noted it is stated wherefore we teach and declare that by Divine ordinance the Roman church possesses as preeminence of ordinary power over every other church and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful of whatever right and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical

subordination and true obedience. And this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. If this is apostolic tradition, then one would see this obedience being demonstrated by bishops in every place from the time of the apostles. One may find a few exceptions, but evidence from all places and times will be clear of obedience to the bishop of old Rome in all matters. It will be most clear when the bishops of the church gather in ecumenical councils to define the faith and discipline of the church. In both these matters, the fathers of the council

should affirm Roman discipline and governance. Yet, from the 3rd century, we see disputes of other churches with the see of Rome on a number of matters of discipline and governance. One of the most famous being that with St. Cyprian regarding reception of converts. In this dispute, St. Cyprian did not feel any compulsion to obey the position of the Bishop of Rome, nor even to justify not doing so. He rather argued that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority to impose his rule on the church under Cyprian. He says, for neither does any of us set himself up as a

bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. St. Cyprian was not an exception in what he taught on reception. The fathers in the east as a whole followed some kip friends rule and principle such as witnessed by an apostolic canon a canon of saint basil the great the canons of the second and sixth ecumenical councils the last of which affirmed saint katharine's canon along with that of saint basil the great as. They did not accept the rule argued by St Stephen, Bishop of Rome, even though the likes of St Vincent

of Lerans considered it to have won the day. In the fifth century we see the affirming of a see of Constantinople as equal to old Rome despite the protests of St. Leo the Great. The canon of a fourth ecumenical council affirming this remained firm in the East, both in being obeyed in the recognition of the priorities of Constantinople, New Rome, and by the affirmation of a sixth ecumenical council, as well as a recognition of the emperors, as in the law of Justinian. Not only in these two cases, but in a number of matters of discipline, the fathers of ecumenical

councils made canons other than the discipline in Old Rome, and even critiqued the discipline in Old Rome, such as fasting on Saturdays and the celibacy of liturgy. With this evidence, one is left in a situation if the Declaration of Vatican I is apostolic tradition, that for centuries saints and inspired fathers in the East, all in communion with old Rome, were living and acting in disobedience, not only to the Bishop of Rome, but to the apostles and to Christ himself, the origin of the tradition. To allege that these fathers were disobedient regarding discipline, having just been inspired by the Holy Spirit to rightly divide the Word of

Truth in obedience to Christ on matters of faith, is to propose a contradiction of character that would amount to the denial of those Fathers as having the Holy Spirit. However, we can avoid such an absurdity by stating that no such obedience as declared at Vatican I was received in the apostolic tradition, and that the claims of old Rome as expressed at Vatican I are innovations arising about the time of the schism, as evidenced in the Dictatus Papi of Gregory VII. What? Are we then to deny the primacy of Rome or the inheritance of St. Peter, the promise and the rock? By no means. Rather, we need to understand them in a different manner, in a different ecclesiastical framework. Let's turn again to St. Ciprian of Carthage.

The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again the same he says after the resurrection, feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles after his resurrection,

he gives an equal power and says, as the Father has sent me, even so I send you, receive you the Holy Spirit. Whatsoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him. And whatsoever sins you retain, they shall be retained. Yet that he might set forth unity, he argued, arranged by his authority, the origin of that unity as beginning from one. Assuredly, the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership, both of honor and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity. From this,

we can see that St. Peter and then the Bishop of Rome, as the Petrines see, provides a beginning as a centre of unity of bishops, who are equal as bishops. Just as St Cyprian said, each bishop has his own singular rights in his own church, which only each one can exercise in his territory and no other, no matter what the rank of the other bishop. The core principle to be maintained is that a bishop is a singular voice of will or consent that can only be exercised by one mind, one will, one mouth. Thus one man is one bishop and no other. The unity of a faithful and priesthood is realized in each church about the bishop, and the fullness of the Catholic church is completed in each. There is no authority over that of the bishop pertaining to matters within his church, as exercised according to the canons of the church, that is, to the will of Christ.

The synod of a metropolis as a whole, though, can judge a bishop within it for acts contrary to the canons, that is, matters of an ecclesiastical nature, but not for no other reasons. Again, as stated in a canon of the Ecumenical Council, if, however, certain persons should declare that they have an accusation of an ecclesiastical nature against the bishop, the Holy Council bids these persons to lodge the accusations before the bishops of the province and before them to prove for charges against the bishop involved in the case. Not only are the

singular rights true for each bishop, they are also true for the rights of each metropolitan of each provincial synod. The metropolitan is a singular point of ordination of bishops and convoker of provincial sinners again in obedience to the canons as stated in general it is obvious that if in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the metropolitan's approval the great council nicaea has prescribed that such a person must not be a bishop. The metropon has no right to interfere in the churches of his own bishops or other metropolises, as in the canon. Let bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless officially summoned hither. or any other ecclesiastical services unless officially summoned hither,

it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance to regulations decreed at Nicaea. The metropolitans in their singularity unite the bishops in the province. As Apostolic Canon 34 states, the bishops of each province need to know that the

first among them and to follow the first among them and to follow him as head and are not to manage anything exceeding without his consent. And each is only to manage as much as assigned by his parish and those regions under it. But neither is that to do anything without the consent of all, for thus there will be harmony. The patriarchs in turn, directly or with exarchs, unite the metropolitans, again respecting their proper rights. This is clear in Canon 28 of Chalcedon. And it is ranged so that only the metropolitans of Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy church of Constantinople.

That is to say that each metropolitan of the aforesaid diocese, together with the bishops of the province, shall ordain the bishops of the province. That is as prescribed by the divine canons. The patriarchs or exarchs each form final courts of appeal for metropolitan synods. Their dissensions are not open to further appeal or judgment. Again, in a canon. But if it so happened that the provincial bishops are unable and competent to decide the case against the bishop and make the correction

due they are to go to a greater synod of the bishops of the the stiosis summoned to try the case but if anyone is scorning what has been discredited by the foregoing statements, should dare to annoy the emperor's ears, or trouble courts or secular authorities, or an ecumenical council, to be a front of all the bishops of a diocese. Let no such person be allowed to present any information whatever, because of his having this roundly insulted the canons and ecclesiastical discipline. Note that both the exarch as well as the patriarchs are final courts of appeal, as is in this canon. On the other hand, a clergyman has a dispute with his own bishop or with some other bishop. Let it be held tried by the synod of the province. If any bishop or clergyman has a dispute with the metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the exarch of the diocese

or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him. The case is to be tried either before the exarch or by the patriarch, but not one after the other. The same applied in the Western Patriarchate of Old Rome, to whom decisions of provincial synods could be appealed as a final court of appeal. The patriarchs, in turn, are united around the singular sea of Peter. Let us hear what St. Leo the Great, for the cementing of our unity demands harmony among the priests.

And though they have a common dignity, yet they are not uniform rank. Inasmuch as even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there is a certain distinction of power. And while election of them was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest, and from which model is arisen the distinction between bishops. And again, through whom the care of a universal church should converge towards Peter's one seat. This Peter's one seat was manifest in three bishops, those of Rome, Alexandra, and Antioch. The patriarchs thus undermining an exclusive patron privilege of old Rome.

This is clear from what St. Gregory the Great, the Pope of old Rome, states in the letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria. Wherefore, though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself, the sea of the prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is a sea of one. For he himself exalted the sea in which he deigned even to rest and to end his present life.

He himself adorned the sea which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the sea in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is a sea of one, and one sea, over which the divine authority three bishops now preside. Each is a Petrine sea, although Rome takes the first place of these as the beginning of unity, not as over them. That is, the Bishop of Rome neither ordains the bishops of the other patroncies, nor calls them into council. The gathering of the bishops from all patriarchs for an ecumenical council had to be done by universal authority outside the hierarchy of the church, that of the emperor, to whom all bishops owed obedience as St. Paul teaches.

And as St. Leo testifies, the holy synod of Chalcedon, which the zeal of our most Christian prince had convened, that the one see is three without one having a singular authority over the others is consistent with the singularity of the bishop because it is precisely as a single will for ordination and falling for calling councils that there can only be one the patron c can be three because it doesn't carry those roles at a universal level. So that St. Gregory is not seen as an exception in his teaching, let's hear the canon of a first ecumenical council.

Let the ancient customs prevail, which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the Bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment accorded to the Bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment according to the Bishop of Rome, likewise with reference to Antioch, and in the other provinces let the seniority be preserved in the churches. The canon names the same three scenes, which are identified with greater privileges following Rome as precedent. This matches the teaching of St. Gregory exactly as a one patrine C in three. We also see the inalienable rights of the seniority of the metropolitans. Having set the ecclesiastical framework,

let's address the claim to universal episcopal authority in particular. To understand the limits of this authority, let us turn again to St. Gregory the Great. He states, if one bishop is called universal, the universal church comes to ruin if the one who is universal falls. This is why the claim of Vatican I to infallibility is necessary with the concept of universal bishop that it claims. But this is not the apostolic tradition as understood by St. Gregory. Rather, he opposes such an idea of a universal bishop, arguing nothing about infallibility or having never erred or can never err, but only the reality of being able to fall. In regards to the singularity of the authority of bishops,

metropolitans and patriarchs, St. Gregory also states, then I am truly honored with the honor due to all and each is not denied them. For if your holiness calls me universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. This means that a claim to universal episcopal authority is to deny the other bishops what they have also, even if one tries to say otherwise, because the rights are singular and can only be held by one.

The universal claim of one immediately denies it to the others. Let us also hear St. Leo the Great in his dispute about Canon 28. The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown, nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The see of Alexandria may not lose any of the dignity which is merited through St. Mark, the evangelist and apostle of a priest of Peter, nor may the splendor of so great a church be obscured by another's clouds. The Ascoros, having fallen through his persistence in impiety, the church of Antioch too,

in which first the preaching of the blessed apostle Peter, the Christian name arose, must continue in position assigned to it by the fathers and be spent in the third place, must never be lowered therefrom, for the sea is on a different footing to the holders of it. We see here a clear statement of the preservation of the proper rights of each primate, of a metropolitan again the Petrine bishops named distinctly.

St Leo fought hard here often to respect the rights of metropolitans and their permanence. This is how the bishops are well understood of their primacy, as guardians of the proper rights of the various ranks of bishops, not as claiming these rights for themselves. We also see the rights of the senior sees belong to the throne of the city and not to the bishop in person, that he may fall but the sea continues to maintain its place. Universal episcop, though, belongs to the bishop as person, and if he falls, the universal church comes to ruin. Despite St. Gregory's protest, the bishops of Constantinople continue to call themselves universal, but not, though, as condemned by St. Gregory.

Rav is demonstrating that a universal jurisdiction does not necessitate the position of Vatican I claiming authority as bishop in each place. It can be understood as a center of unity respecting the singular rights and jurisdictions of others. To conclude, the primacy of Rome is affirmed in apostolic tradition as being the first of the churches, the final court of appeal with the right to correspond to all the churches in defense of a tradition of a church for the purpose of unity. The patriarchal principle was also affirmed and the stability of the rock. However, the authority of Old Rome is universal bishop as Vatican I claims is not true to

apostolic tradition. These claims rather deny the rights and dignity of the other bishops and lead to the absurd situation of a mass disobedience by the bishops in the East. Rather, a respect for the proper rights of the bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs, each as a singularity in his own proper jurisdiction and equal as bishops that no other bishop even the bishop of rome can exercise this is the apostolic tradition thank you very much father patrick i want to remind everybody that in the description below you'll find bios to our two presenters today as well as the debate format we're about to enter into two rounds of rebuttals the the first being seven minutes, the second being four minutes. After that, we're going to be doing a time of cross-examination. And after that, we'll have

about 30 minutes for Q&A. So if you want to make sure that your question is read, make it a super chat or go ask it on Patreon. Okay, Eric, your first rebuttal. Thank you, Matt. I appreciate that, Father Patrick. It was a good opening statement. So one of the things I'd like to say here in my rebuttal is simply that the Vatican Council, as I said, had four parts, the institution of the primacy, the permanence of the primacy, the nature of the primacy, and the infallible prerogative of that primacy. And, you know, I quoted from a number of instances in the early church where it's clearly delineated that Christ, while he was in the flesh, singled out Peter and equipped or invested him with a primacy of jurisdiction.

And that this was not given through any intermediation. It wasn't given through a council's decrees as pope damasus the first says in 382 uh it wasn't regulated by um at least in terms of giving the the the bishop of rome the authority from from scratch by any of the canons um the permanence of the primacy a number of witnesses in the ecumenical councils like the sixth ecumenical council the seventh ecumenical council and the fourth ecumenical council both both all of those give information that speak to the permanence of the primacy of Rome in the sea of Rome only. It's implied that the non-transferability is implied by the divine institution. I take divine institution to imply divine irreversibility.

And because the primacy of Rome was divinely instituted and fixed with the life of St. Peter, transferability to another sea would require a fresh divine institution. And so I think transferability is ruled out. The other part of the Vatican Council was the nature of the primacy, the jurisdiction. I quoted from Pope St. Martin, who delegated John, Bishop of Philadelphia, who was delegated by Pope Martin to go into the seas of Antioch and Jerusalem and to replace some of the church offices that were seized. And this is for the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. And then he appeals to the authority that was given to St. Peter by the person of Christ. So it's an immediate and direct non-intermediatory authority that Pope Martin claims. And Pope Martin is a highly venerated saint in the Orthodox Church. He is a martyr, and I think his voice needs to be reckoned with

because it also goes along with a chorus of other saints. As Father Lauren Klinowork made clear, many saints, especially in the West, many of those being popes, and then also Eastern saints, spoke about this singular prerogative of the Roman see that doesn't come from canons, but it came from Christ the Lord to St. Peter.

The other part of the Vatican Council was the infallible prerogative of St. Peter and his successor. I brought out that this was stated by Pope Agatho in the sixth ecumenical council. It was accepted by the Greeks with no contest, no disagreement. ecumenical council. It was accepted by the Greeks with no contest, no disagreement. Father Alexander Schmemann recognized that the council did not make any clear rejection of that. And so it's officially inscribed in the highest ranking books for the Orthodox Church, one of the ecumenical councils. Father Alexander Schmemann also recognized that the subscription to the formula of Hormiztas was basically the whole essence of the papacy in that claim, in that formula. And it was signed by numerous people in the East and the West to heal the Acasian schism.

decrees, if we could find a bare minimum, would be that Christ singled out Peter to have a primacy of authority. Two, that primacy continues to live on in his successors in the Roman bishopric. Three, that primacy is universal and has jurisdiction. Four, it's divinely instituted and therefore is divinely irreversible and would last until the end of time. I think that no other ecclesiology today, whether we're talking about the Coptic Orthodox, the or the Eastern Orthodox, really has room in its bloodstream to welcome that kind of ecclesiology without severe modifications. And so it leaves, I believe, Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, as the only legitimate continuation of this patrion configuration, which has so many voices from saints and martyrs in the first millennium. I think you're on mute, Matt. Sorry about that. I didn't want the background noise interfering with your rebuttal there. Thank you, Eric. Father Patrick, you have seven minutes.

All right. Thank you, Eric. I'm just going to do a little bit of soundbiting for a while. I sort of try to make a bit more coherent sense of it. I think it's important to realize that in Orthodox ecclesiology, that the bishops don't mediate in authority, but they are the direct authority in their own churches. So they are not mediating anybody else's authority. They are the direct authority also just to make a point that apostolic tradition includes faith and discipline so it is not just

simply a matter of um the creed of what we believe in a sort of theological sense but it's also the practice of the church the way the church regulates itself, the way it practices its customs and these things of that nature. Now, Eric raises up the Council of Sardegna as supporting the patriarchal, universal sort of jurisdiction of the patriarch of Rome. Sardegna at that time was within the patriarchate of Rome. So all it actually demonstrates is that Rome had patriarchal jurisdiction in that area and the Orthodox are fully accepting that as a final Court of Appeal in the Patriarchate that is certainly the case and it's certainly that Rome should have that and it's certainly agreed that it is because of St. Peter.

So it's a little hard to sometimes take that beyond to pushing that final court appeal extends beyond that, especially when I read one of the canons on the Chalcedon, which actually gives the final court appeal to Constantinople and doesn't even mention of rome um the form of masters is not inconsistent with antioch and um alexandria being having been petrified i think rome the case what i'd make is that rome is the symbol of the patreon sea rome is a symbol of the singularity of the patreon sea Sea. And so most of the time, and as a leader of that, it is the one that is named as carrying the Petrine principle. It is a name as the one that's carrying the rock. It is the one singled out as being the authority of St. Peter. Now, what we must not do is read that to exclude the same authority existing in Alexandria and Antioch.

And I could even say in Constantinople, which I'll come to in a minute. So I think that we must distinguish between the talk of Rome as the symbol of the Petrine Sea and the actual authority and the permanence of the patrine see as it exists in the three now john acting for rome does not can mean two things one that the pope over exerted his power and we can see that the ecumenical patriarch in the orthodox churches now who's who occasionally over exerts what is accepted authority by everybody else. So if we've got singular cases in history of a Pope doing this or that, we don't know whether it's not just simply an overexertion of his authority, claiming more than he really has. Now, if you can show that to be done in multiple times in multiple places, then we can definitely set a pattern.

But a singular case is not usually sufficient or a singular pope or a singular time. Even then, what we don't have is that the pope appoints someone who's already a proper bishop somewhere else to act on his behalf, sorting things out, trying to fix things up for him. The Pope himself didn't go across and start ordaining people left, right, and center. He didn't despise the authority and the proper canonical order that was there. He was rather appointing someone to try to be his flagship amongst the authorities there, amongst the order there, to sort it out in a way consistent with the church so we can read it this way that it's not necessarily enthringing the direct rights of the bishops over metropolitans of the patriarch in that area um and the divine institution yes

i orthodox would fully agree that the position of St. Peter is, Rome is from St. Peter. It's the divine institution that is perfectly accepted by Orthodox position. Now, regarding the permanence of the Patrine Sea, Rome has a problem. If the Patrine Sea exists in Alexandria and Antioch, they too, according to St. Leo, are permanent. They are not seas that can just suddenly drop off the church. Any more than Rome can drop off the church.

So that they are divided from Rome is equally a problem for the argument of permanence for Rome as it is perhaps of the Orthodox. The Orthodox, though, have a slightly better situation because Constantinople is recognized as new Rome. It is the sea of Rome. Therefore, it has the same authority, the same power as the sea of Rome. When old Rome dropped out of the church for the Orthodox, it never lost Rome. Rome continued in Constantinople, and also Alexandria and Antioch. The Petrine principle, the Petrine seed, the Petrine privileges and authority for the unity of the church remained fully intact within the Orthodox churches, the Catholic church for want of a better word.

And we can see this authority exercised by Constantinople in exactly the same way as Rome did for the first centuries. Everyone followed its rites, it managed all the issues around the church and brought about the unity of the church. So no, the old flock churches have lost nothing over the loss of Rome. And all we need to do is shift from an exclusivity of the old Rome and understand that new Rome in Constantinople is the same. It's exactly as Chalcedon said, it's the same problems, same things. Yes, the bishops went on the line coming from Peter, but the inheritance

was because it was the same city. The primacy belongs to the city of Rome, not to the bishop as person, not to the pope as person. It belongs to the throne. It belongs to the city of Rome, not to the bishop as person, not to the pope as person. It belongs to the throne. It belongs to the city. Whoever sits on the throne has the authority. And new Rome had the same throne because it was the same city. It was Rome. And therefore, its bishops exercise the same authority. That's why it never displaced Alexandria and Antiochus, second and third, because it was first. It was also first with Rome. It was only second in regards to

old Rome, to preserve the traditions of the church, the old order. But losing Rome did not cause a problem for the presence or continuance of the see of Rome in the Orthodox churches. So yes, that will sum up my rebuttal. Thank you, Father Patrick.

Just so you know, Father Patrick, there's a ton of people in the chat who want you to start reading audiobooks. Everyone's a big fan of your voice. And I told them next week there'll be an Australia versus New Zealand debate, and that's when it'll really get going. But thank you so much. All right, we're going to move to our second round of rebuttals. After this, we'll move into a time of cross-examination. And so, Eric, you have four

minutes. Okay. So the first thing I would say is that, you know, responding to this idea that universal authority removes the authority of others, like St. Gregory the Great said. St. Gregory the Great is teaching that if there is one bishop of the globe, then everyone else can't, there can't be another bishop. That seems logically required. But that does, that's not what, Gregory still taught that all the churches were subject to the apostolic see according to the principle of dispute.

So he's famous for saying this. When all things are at peace, everyone is an equal. Every bishop is an equal brother. But whenever there is a dispute that arises, there is not a single church under the sun that is not subject to the apostolic seat. The other thing I wanted to say was that, you know, the Council of Sardica set up an appellate jurisdiction of Rome, which makes perfect sense, because even as late as 1931, Pope Pius IX in Quod recimo anno stated that the principle of subsidiarity is vital to the court of Rome, the last court, trying to make it a matter of first instance is not ‑‑ it was not permitted. And even at the

Council of Trent, appeals of first instance weren't allowed in Rome. And that's well after the Greek and Latin schism. The other thing I wanted to say was Father mentioned that the Council of Sardica was within the patriarchy of Rome. However, in the 5th century, in 451, St. Flavian of Constantinople, who's a saint in both of our rituals, he appealed to Rome over the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 449. I say ecumenical because for all intents and purposes, it was ecumenical from its convocation. Flavian appealed to Pope Leo, and Leo interpreted that as in his letter 44 to, in 44 in the leonine epistolary he he refers to leo's i'm sorry he refers to flavian's appeal as an application of the canons of sardica and so we already have in 450 um an appeal from an Eastern saint in Constantinople, no less, over an

ecumenical council to St. Leo, and St. Leo registers that as the Sardic in privilege, which means that it's got to be wider than the Roman patriarchate. what could possibly have foisted a confusion on this matter between Rome and Constantinople in such a short amount of time? The other thing is St. Cyprian of Carthage. Yes, he did sustain the absolute equality of all bishops, but many scholars and historians recognize that he was superseded by a larger voice in the church. Other saints and other bishops and fathers have superseded his position. And Leo the Great himself taught that the metropolitan had his, the bishops in a certain sense. There's no sign of, there's no sign of, of, of metropolitical structure in St. Cyprian.

But even Orthodox theologian, Father Afanasiev, Nicholas Afanasiev, in Primacy of Peter, page 99, edited by John Mindor, recognizes that Cyprian's logic really needed a universal primate. And he admits that Pope Stephen made the conclusion correctly. All right. Thank you, Father. You've got about four minutes for your second rebuttal before we move into cross-examination. Vatican yeah my point is that Vatican I though Eric states that it's not trying to

talk about a Gregorian single bishop by the fact that it claims and states that it has episcopal and immediate jurisdiction over every other church is effectively, whether it says it or not, claiming Episcopal power. It's claiming the authority of the bishop. And this is the point,

that the authority of the bishop can only be held by one, the local bishop. If another holds it, then it is no longer the bishop holds it, it other it can only be held by one so that particular authority is what is visible and if the universal bishop or pope holds that particular thing he effectively will bring down the whole church if he messes up because he starts going to heresy stuff all the hierarchy underneath him will fall with him so the this is why it's so important that the will fall with him. So this is why it's so important that the patrons didn't ordain each other, that they don't call ecumenical councils to stop the singular bishop bringing the whole church

into ruin. That's why it had to be found off to the emperor to do that particular task. Otherwise, if the convoker, the holder, does it cause false communication, the whole church goes down with him because of its hierarchical linkings. Appeal, look, the general sense of appeals, we've got, as I said, each patriarch's final court of appeal is a canon state. Now, that doesn't mean that a patriarch or Antiochian Alexander can't appeal to Rome for help. Of course it can. Rome does have a sort of universal

jurisdiction. And it's not, the actual Flavian is not appealing over an ecumenical council per se. He's appealing against the council claiming itself to be ecumenical. So he's not appealing against what is a received ecumenical council. He's appealing against the council that claims to be ecumenical. So we must make that distinction. And that's perfectly legitimate to appeal to Rome as the center of the churches. It's perfectly normal that Rome has priority in all ecumenical councils to present the doctrine of faith, like St. Leo, St. Agatha. That is it. He does speak with a sense of a traditional St. Peter. He does speak with an authority as a testimony to the entire world

of the faith of the church. He carries a very important role, and indeed, we do see a preservation of the faith. The only reason for the fall of Rome was when it moved from a position of respecting the rights of other metropolises to claiming those to itself as as a hardest papi said that it could go into any diocese and ordain a cleric freely that it had rights over the princes so in other words that even the giving of the right of the calling the council to emperor which is stood outside of any hierarchical rights, any ecclesiastical authority, was brought under it.

That is when the papacy moves apart. Not because it was central, not because it was interested in Palestine, not because it was trying to keep the unity, not because it was trying to keep the cannons there and sending people over and doing what it can or hearing appeals. It was because it was starting to claim the specific rights that belonged to the specific jurisdictions which um was not part of the tradition of the church and that's where it stepped across the line and um and the vatican

one and what it claims is actually doing that it is a fundamental statement of that and that's why it's rejected by the um as i said as i find it inconsistent with the Evergreat, St. Gregory Evergreat, with the tradition of the church. And I think that's about my four minutes. Thank you so much, Father. I just want to say thank you to both of you. You guys are doing a great job. It's very thorough, and you can tell you guys know your stuff, but you're also talking with each other in a very charitable manner,

which I think is a great witness for all of us. Okay, before we move into cross-examination, I want to say thank you to Catholic Chemistry. Catholic Chemistry is an awesome dating website and app that was started by a friend of mine, Chuck Gallucci, his name was. I used to work at Catholic Answers. He worked beside me, and he was frustrated about many of these Catholic dating apps because, I don't know, they were just kind of stuck in the 90s. They weren't beautifully designed and you didn't often find a lot of people serious about their faith on them, or at least that's what I've been told. So if you're somebody who's single and you're looking to get married or you feel the Lord is calling you to get married, be sure to go over

to Catholic Chemistry. There is a link in the description below. Be sure to click that so they know that we sent you. We've received so many excellent quotations from people and feedback from them who are saying that they've met their spouse online and things like this, and it's been really great. Let's see here. Somebody said, I'm happily married to the man I met on Catholic Chemistry. Thank you for being an instrument of God's work in our lives. We are loving our vocation. Somebody else said, I've been joyfully dating Daniel, who I met on Catholic Chemistry for five months now. I guess somebody watched my wife's podcast, Among the Lilies, and they heard about Catholic chemistry and they got on there and now they're married.

So if you're single, go check out Catholic chemistry. They have video chat. It's very sleek. The app's fantastic. And I think you'll really like it. Also, I want to say thank you to Halo. Halo is an excellent app that will help you to pray and meditate. It's the number one app in the United States of America. It's very sophisticated, very well produced, and 100% Catholic.

You know, there are a lot of apps out there today that help people overcome anxiety or maybe help them to meditate, but they lead into sort of new.com. There's a link below. If you click that, that would be the best way to go about it. There's a link below. If you click that, that would be the best way to go about it. They have free content on their app, but you can access everything by signing up. But you can get three months for free right now if you click the link in the description. And then as you sign up on the website, just type in Matt Fradd, one word, and they'll give you three months to the entire thing. They have sleep stories, nightly examines that leads you through, and things like that. I think they have sleep stories, nightly examines that leads you through and things like that.

It's really nice to see Christians producing fantastic media, not just sort of, you know, low quality media, but hey, at least it's Christian. So go check out hallow, H-A-L-L-O-W dot com slash Matt Fradd. Again, that link is in the description below. Okay, okay, okay. So now we're going to move into a time of cross-examination. Each debater will be able to cross-examine the opponent for 12 minutes. And I just want to remind the audience, but it's no sign of rudeness if the person engaged in the cross-examination is interrupting the other debater

and moving the discussion on. That's what's expected here. So we'll begin with 12 minutes with you, Eric, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Matt. And thank you, Father Patrick. Father Patrick, you had said that if the Vatican Council's decree on papal primacy was true, that we would see obedience to Rome all over the place. And, you know, the fact that there are times where there are people in the church who disobeyed the decrees of Rome disproves, or at least shows that it's unlikely that the Vatican Council's decrees are true. My question to you would be, does Orthodox ecclesiology have unanimous acceptance

by everyone with only minor exceptions in the first millennium? with only minor exceptions in the first millennium. Can you put context, unanimous decision, what context? Are we talking about set out of decisions, technical cancels, and every little point of life? Yeah, so basically in, you know, I think some sort of criteria was produced, which said that because Rome had been disobeyed in certain instances in the first millennium, that would call into question the truth of the Vatican Council's decrees. be obeying Rome, at least the majority or, you know, the virtual unanimous position would be

that Rome would have to be obeyed all the time. So I'm curious, though, does Orthodox ecclesiology, you know, the belief that you outlined about the, you know, the metropolitan authority and the bishop's authority being complete in itself, does that have the same kind of universal acceptance? And if not, does orthodox ecclesiology become falsified? Right. Just trying to put this into... I think what we've got here is an orthodox ecclesia. As far as I understand, if you look at the canons, there is a principle of unanimity. When you look at the Ecumenical Council, you talk about all the fathers agreed and everyone agreed of the consent of all.

You look at canon 34 that all may consent you look at another canon that speaks that all must agree but then it says except oral thus stating look if one person has a major issue about a fundamental issue of theology or discipline and is disagreeing like St. Mark of Ephesus on a particular point, that's not to be taken as an exception. That's to be taken as a sort of, oh, let's step back and actually rethink where we're going with this. Whereas if two or three people, oh, I don't like him, he's a bit of a, no, I'm not going to vote for him because he's upset me the other day.

You don't push it that far. So being unanimous, like in the Archbiblical Council, when we talk about unanimous, yes, five or six bishops of the 318 there didn't agree. But it's like in a football crowd when you say everybody's chairing, the whole crowd chaired. We're not literally meaning every person in the crowd chaired. You're stating that the impression, the style, that in the crowd chaired, you're stating that the

impression, the style, that the whole crowd chaired, it wasn't just a majority, it wasn't even a large majority, it was like the whole crowd did, but it's not stating that every single one did it. And so this is a sense of unanimity. Now, in modern Orthodox practice, there is a sense that I think a majority, and a lot of councils are sort of moving to a bit more of a majority position, sort of a democratic majority rules. Now what I would say in that is that doesn't disprove any sense of a unanimous sense of why councils should work. It just says that they're not that doctrine, that sense that is not being practiced.

That doesn't undermine the doctrine. It just simply states the doctrine is not being practiced. What's happening at the Vatican is it's actually declaring as a fundamental doctrine of the church something which is of an obedience that is owed to all as received from Christian teaching. that is owed to or as received from Christian teaching. And my argument with that is if that was indeed the apostolic tradition from the start, yes, you would find a lot of people disobeying, of course. So you're going to find. But when you come to the ecumenical councils,

when you come to that the fathers felt free to debate, the 14th day of St. Vincent didn't concede to St. Vincentth day of St. Vincent, didn't concede to St. Vincent because it was St. Vincent. If that was apostolic tradition, if they knew in their conscience that this was an obedience owed to Rome, and if Rome spoke about matters of discipline and governance, this is minor thing, but when you keep the calendar, they would immediately go, yes,

all the other bishops around them would have said, you go there, you follow them, because Rome said it, what are you arguing for? You know, you don't see this. You don't see this type of thing going on. And in the ecumenical councils, at the fourth ecumenical council, you don't see the fathers go, oh, God, sorry, it's Leo. They were trying to persuade him to agree.

Of course they want his agreement and unanimity. But they made the canon nevertheless, and they held it nevertheless despite something that i was precious and it remained otherwise constantinople wouldn't be the first sea in the east it wouldn't be ordaining any bishops because that's what the canon was there to do if it had been rejected it would have been a minor sea of byzantium sitting down in the bottom end and alexandria and antioch would be the two great seas but no it's it's a great sea the second in the church, recognized by the emperors. That means the canon stood firm, despite St. Leo. And then the sixth ecumenical council. Okay, I agree that Rome didn't accept them, but if the bishops felt these holy men who sat down and correctly divided the word of truth, saints felt that they owed obedience at that level which Vatican I's saying and matters of discipline

to Rome then they make a canon at an ecumenical council level what they're claiming contrary we're criticizing the discipline of Rome that to me is just inconsistent there's no way that the whole mass of them you can find three or four of them but the whole mass of the bishops of the east making that common statement i just can't see that you could claim that that is apostolic tradition which they've known and held from from being passed from generation to generation that a few may just like yes but to have that happen i just don't believe that that's possible it's just the inconsistency I find incredible. Yeah, let me move on. Yeah, it would be better if we do shorter answers this time because I'm trying to get more interaction here.

That's okay. You had said before that the Sea of Constantinople is equal with the Sea of Rome. Do you think that the Sea of Constantinople was canonically made equal to Rome's universal patrine prerogatives? And if you do believe that, who in the first millennium ever testifies to that? Well, you've got the canon itself, which says it's equal to Rome and all the privileges of Rome.

It's equal to all its privileges because it is Rome. So there is no statement, anything less than that, that it is equal. That's what the canon states. There's no qualification or anything it can be equal to is the universal prognosis of Rome, because it was Rome. And it called itself the ecumenical patriarch, the universal patriarchy. It had the same dominance in the Eastern churches with its rites and everything, just as Rome had in the West. There's nothing to show that it actually was anything less, or recognised as such, by anyone in the East.

The only thing it would be different from is a post schism or post ninth century whatever idea of Roman and universality or thing which is applied back on to constant and which is inconsistent with that yes of course but then we're not talking about that type of insistence and we're talking about what they're all thoughts with claim as was the the universal authority of Rome. And yes, I can't see any reason or any evidence to show that it was

considered anything otherwise, except that it was always second to Old Rome. Old Rome always had a prerogative, so there's always a deference to Old Rome. There's always an appeal to Old Rome, which never goes in reverse. It's not a transfer of power. It's a sharing of a power. It's an equality of a power, but old Rome always took first place. So you're always going to

see a deference to old Rome. You're always going to see that being first in discussion. So in a sense, Constantinople was always, in a sense, less than what you would see for old Rome because it had to take second place to it. see for old Rome because it had to take second place to her. I see. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, in his commentary on the ninth canon of the Council of Chalcedon, goes on to say that, you know, I don't want to quote the whole thing here, but Nicodemus states that the Bishop of Constantinople cannot hear the appeals of The Economist states that the Bishop of Constantinople cannot hear the appeals of metropolitans or bishops who want to appeal above their metropolitans,

and that it was restricted to the territories underneath Constantinople. This is corroborated by two contemporary, well, the late Archbishop Peter Luhi, who was an Orthodox Archbishop, former professor at St. Vladimir Theological Seminary, and today a contemporary Father John Erickson. Both of those men have said,

first in his book on the ancient councils, on the commentary on Canon 9, 17 and 28, and then also Father John Erickson in his book, The Meaning of Our Past. Nicodemus seems to be restricting Constantinople's appellate jurisdiction. Would you agree with that or disagree with that? No, I think there's been a couple of opinions there there is that different strain of thought that it does restrict it to simply its patriarchal jurisdiction that is appeals from the diocese of thracia asia and pontus um that could well be the case the canon itself at an ecumenical council leaves things a little bit open because it isn't a community council just simply states anyone from his exarch

And it doesn't really qualify that limit Just in the similar way that the canon to Rome doesn't really qualify for limit and I could apply equal qualifications to both so I'm particularly open if it is just happens to be that Rome could only had a pure like structure of constant opople, sorry, from Pontus, the diocese of Pontus, Asia, and fine. I mean, that would work with me. If it has a wider jurisdiction of appeal, that's also fine too. And I do think later, once Rome is separated from the Orthodox churches, that you do find appeals from Antioch and Alexandria for Constantinople's help.

So in the same way as you did before with old Rome. So I'm happy to work with them, but I do think that possibly there is a wider structure. Okay. According to Dr. Aristis Papadakis in his The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, he's a notable scholar, Orthodox

scholar, and he says that for all Byzantine Orthodox theology, the Roman Sea had primacy by church legislation, that is by purely historical factors and considerations, and not by divine institution from Christ to St. Peter.

Would you agree that this is in contradiction to the testimonies that I've adduced from the first millennium. I'm convinced personally that the Christ, the year of St. Peter, established the primacy of Rome and established the institutional structure of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. These are all divine. I also believe that the institution of Constantinople is by divine will. That's what the Ecumenical Council is expressing and testifying to is divine will.

It is equally set up by God and it purposes. I don't think any ecclesiastical establishment, even if it's through the fathers, it is actually an expression of divine will. It's not simply a political thing of mere time and stuff which is why all these institutions are permanent because they are divine they're established by God so no I I disagree with that line of Orthodox thinking that just sort of tries to reduce these things to mere times of political places economy and stuff like that no I I'm definitely the camp camp that the petrioncy is set by Christ, is set by God, and it is to be remained forever.

It's just how we interpret what that means, not that it's set up and established by God. All right, we're going to switch now. Father, you have 12 minutes to cross-examine Eric. And like I said before, you're welcome to interrupt him at any point and push the conversation along however you see fit. Okay. Well, Eric, do we have much evidence or any evidence of the Bishop of Rome

going into another diocese and ordaining presbyters, subdeacons, deacons, as claimed is proper by the Dictatus Papi and Vatican I, essentially claims you have an episcopal power. You can go in anywhere you like and obtain anyone. Do we have any evidence of that? Well, we have evidence for the power to do so, and that would be sufficient. But we do have evidence.

We have evidence, like I adduced from Pope Martin I, who ordained John, Bishop of Philadelphia, to go into not just the Episcopate, but the Presbyterate and the Diaconate under the Sea of Jerusalem in Antioch, to replace, basically to depose men who were ordained into office and replaced them with those who agreed with the decrees of the Council of Lateran 649. We also have before that Pope Theodore I, who commissioned Stephen of Dor, who was a disciple of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, to do the same only within the Sea of Jerusalem. In both instances, they appeal not to canonical right or extraordinary emergency only. They appeal to the divine power

that was given by Christ to St. Peter and which was at their disposal to exercise freely. So there's that. And those are two saints, Pope Theodore and Pope Martin, preeminent saints. the Sea of Rome was authorized to judge and hear the penance of those who were converting from the monothelite heresy. I'm thinking of the life of Pyrrhus of Constantinople. We have evidence in Pope Nicholas I when he sent representatives to hear the case of Photius entering into the Episcopal or patriarchal office. They appealed to the canons of Sardica, but technically there was no appeal that was lodged by either Ignatius or Photius. So I would say that that's an example, you know, of immediate action.

And Nicholas appealed to the authority of St. Peter. He appealed to the authority of Council of Sardica. And there was no clear rejection of that, and Rome was never required to recant from that position. So there's several other instances. But was there actual ordination? So going back to John, because there are rest of sort of appeal type things and things, but was there an actual, did he actually ordain John as the deacon of a sea in Palestine while in Rome? Did he travel to Palestine? I know he didn't travel to Palestine.

Did he actually, or did he ordain him as deacon for his own church, a presbyter's own church, and then appointed him as bishop or sent him as bishop or transferred him as bishop? What exactly happened? Because the point is, the question is, did he feel like he had

the right to actually go to Jerusalem and ordain a subdeacon or a deacon in the Sea of Jerusalem without the bishop's consent? Well, yes. And the decision to fire them from office would require the same authority to have them ordained by a representative. Of course, the Pope is not there personally to do the ordination himself. But, I mean, we see this all the way going back to the third century where Pope Stephen was consulted. I think it was Cornelius or Stephen. I'm pretty sure it was Stephen.

Cyprian received letters from the bishops of Gaul about Marcianus of Arles who had taken up the Novation error, and Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen, so that Pope Stephen would write to the bishops of Gaul, basically mandating the excommunication of Marcianus and his replacement. And so it's not the Pope personally going there, it's not the Pope, So it's not the Pope personally going there. It's not the Pope, you know, traveling over there to do that. But he is commissioning a cessation of ordinary power. He's telling the bishops in the East, you know, if you believe this, you're no long, you don't have a job anymore. And we're going to put new people in your job. That requires jurisdiction and it requires power and the kind of power that they they proclaimed was not from the canons but

it was from the universal pastorship that was evidenced by the new testament with christ and saint peter yeah yeah no let's see that okay so what you're really talking about is not direct ordination himself but the power of his authority to judge to judge matters to declare someone um valid cleric as as such and to ask a bishop at another area to to act on his behalf or act according to his will or something and and ordaining people to fill up the gaps of their to um that so rather than a direct ordination of the person himself would that be correct uh in most cases that's what i'm referring to but again we wouldn't need a direct ordination to prove the power therein, because it would kind of be like saying, hey, Bishop Photius,

prove that you have jurisdiction in your diocese. I want you to fire all your deacons and replace them tomorrow. It wouldn't be fitting. It wouldn't be appropriate to demand that kind of evidence for the bishop's ordinary jurisdiction. In the same way, I think it would be somewhat expected, and we have evidence of it, but I think it would be unfair to require as a criteria for Rome's ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, pulling the trigger on all these things that we would normally expect to be extremely rare and possibly nonexistent, because Rome always supported the idea of subsidiary.

Problems should always be resolved in the smallest context before they're enlarged to the next court and to the next court and then to the highest court. Okay. So, but yes, so the argument I'll be making is that it's not that the Pope never had any power to actually ordain anybody anywhere like that. And it just simply, the moving up the chain of things was because that was set in the canons of a church as set by God.

This is not a discretion of the papacy to allow this to happen or not. It was just simply what was the tradition of the church. And that's why I'm demanding to see actual ordinations in Cs, and probably more than an exception, so that I can actually see that this is a practice that was conforming to the rule that he walked around different seas, ordained bishops, which he did afterwards. You do see this coming up after the schism where the Pope will ordain a priest for summer and send him off to be a priest somewhere and they just had to accept that.

I don't see any evidence before that. So that's my particular question is the distinction between the claim that he had a power to do something and the actual whether he really did have the power and at the moment i'm struggling to see that your evidence is establishing it maybe with an old exception that there was really a but that that is clear that he actually had the power rather than he was just supporting the apostolic tradition that was already there which he had no control over it was defined by god as such and he just simply which is actually i i yeah i think it's i think it's my turn to answer um so i would say i would say that just like the office of a bishop doesn't require New Testament evidences of bishops, you know, deposing the deacons and replacing priests. They're simply the injunction of St. Paul to the Ephesian bishops.

Take care of the flock that's been entrusted to you. take care of the flock that's been entrusted to you. That's enough. That suffices to explain that bishops have jurisdiction over their flock. In the same way, when Christ said to St. Peter, feed my sheep, that was understood by the popes to be the empowerment to jurisdiction of primacy over the whole universal church. And we do see evidences of this in many instances. But I think that personal ordinations by his own hands would be something that would be less preferred, even if he did have the power to do that. Because there is a

rule to the church. The church has canons. The church has rules, and the popes wanted to uphold those as best as possible, and anything extraordinary to that should be extremely rare. But nevertheless, we do see countless testimonies to the pope having that divine power, and we also have the pope doing actions which would require that power, And we also have the Pope doing actions which would require that power, which aren't precisely what you're asking for. Yeah, that's fine. I think, yeah, this is where we get into an issue is between whether the claims of Vatican I or the claims of the Dictatus Paepae and possibly starting to go a little bit earlier than that, possibly even back into the 9th century with Nicholas, are actually something different and actually claiming

that these things are not done because the Pope chooses not to because he wants to respect the thing of discretion, as distinct from he doesn't do these things because by authority, he had no authority to do these things. He was not under position of discretion. If there was an exception, he was actually over-exerting his authority. And I think the evidence from what I've said and what you've said is such that we really can't call this apart.

And so the evidence could support either way. He's simply upholding the likes of Leo versus the canons of Nicaea. We hold them, we don't move them we we i'm there to to maintain these these rules i'm not there to discretion of um changing the rules i mean i have a certain discretion within the rules to do certain things to remove people to recognize people etc according to the rules so this is where i i'm struggling to see to convince myself of the of the of the apostolic traditional vatican the evidence being there and that's why i'm being very specific too we agree

with the um the petri the divine institution of that we agree with authority we agree with some universal level the central of the unity we all agree on that. I'm not debating it, but it's specific points. It's specifically the ordination of clerics and the calling of a local council and sitting at the head of a local council to judge matters. So going to a metropolis, for example, and sitting there and calling the bishops of metropolis without the consent of the metropolitan

to hear matters pertaining to that metropolis. That's the sort of evidence that is claimed in Vatican I, which I'm not seeing in the history of a church, and which needs to be shown to state that this was the practice received by all the church as a apostolic tradition, as opposed to the case I'm making. Yeah, well, what I would say is that what's required is the claim tradition as opposed to the case I'm making. Yeah, well, what I would say is that what's required is the claim to the power. That's what's required because just like I said, in the Scripture,

what in the Scripture teaches that bishops have jurisdiction over their flocks? It's not prior instances and examples of them being able to fire and hire people. It's simply the injunction from Christ through the apostles, feed my sheep. And it's all over the place in the first millennium that the Bishop of Rome, because of the prerogatives given by Christ to St. Peter, is the unique and singular inheritor of those universal prerogatives, which he can exercise freely. Now, whether he chooses to extraordinarily go out of the way to do something that's necessary, that should be rare. But we have instances, nonetheless, that are not specific. I'm sure there's instances of what you're asking for.

I just don't know off the top of my head, and I think it would be egregious to say that that's the only criteria to test this truth by. All right. Well, I think that these are, as I said, the argument I'm presenting is that there's a certain singularity of a bishop, and he's the only person who can ordain clerics in his diocese. This is his job. He's got three jobs. Ordain clerics, consecrate altars, and bless the myrrh. Now, the myrrh is usually being passed up the chain to the patriarch,

and he just uses the myrrh part, the chrism for anointing for the Holy Spirit. So his only job, which is distinct from repress spirit, is ordination and that. And that's a singular role. And Rome claims to have that power elsewhere. And I'm saying that's not part of the Petrine authority. It's impossible because actually each bishop is, in a sense, Peter in his own sea.

And so there are limits on the Petrine apostasy, as Rome exercises it, in the sense that to respect the particular jurisdiction singularity of the bishops and the metropolises below him and I think the early bishop the popes all respected this yes they have great power they had they could hear and feel and all the rest yes indeed but they never crossed those particular boundaries of these particular singularity powers which each and this is why i think the dictator's pipe specifically mentions it and makes a point of it because this was an issue they weren't this wasn't settled and it was making a particular claim in

those those paper and also as it made a claim against reason v the emperors or rulers and stuff like that these are specific claims that were in dispute and he's putting a specific idea specific policy forward which tends to show that these men may not have been the consensus of apostolic tradition and so i think yes you're right in the sense the scriptures don't detail everything and thing but at the same time and they don't that still opens the thing that there are limits, there are restrictions on what it is to keep this balanced. And I would say that's normal.

I think it would be normal to check that. Why don't we have this be just a, since you're cross-examining Eric, Eric, why don't you just respond and then after that we'll have to go in a Q&A. Okay, I would just say that yes, it's extraordinary and not by way of power. It's not an extraordinary power. It's an extraordinary event, and that was what happened during the

overtake of the Church by local lords and secular rulers. They were hiring their own bishops. Lay investiture was a problem. The popes were pressed against the wall to figure out how to manage the churches in the West, and they tried not to go this route, but they felt that this was the only thing they could do, and they felt empowered by an ancient principle of primacy. All right. Yeah, thanks, guys. Okay, so we're going to take 30 minutes of Q&A now, and just to kind of remind those in the chat and who are watching,

we're debating whether or not the doctrine of papal primacy, which was given at the First Vatican Council, is true to apostolic tradition. So we're going to take some questions from our patrons over at patreon.com slash matt frad as well as super chatters and if you guys i know these are big topics and it's difficult to keep them to one or two minutes but if you could try to keep them to you know two minutes max that

would help us with the flow of these q and these questions uh so uh why don't we begin here? We have questions from our patrons here. Stephen Brosco says, Question for Father. What, if any, positive characteristics do you see in Catholics having a unifying, infallible figure like the Bishop of Rome? Well, I think there is a lot of positivity to it um in a sense it means that the church one of the problems plaguing the orthodox churches because they're sort of losing a little bit of track of that centrifying figure of the patreon c is a sort of a fall into

nationalism into regionalism and things like that you sort of start to split up. Having a more clearly defined central Petrine C allows a sense of both unity for churches, but also a commonality of a tradition where you are working with one tradition. And that allows regional differences underneath. My question of the roman thing is for trent unfortunately they moved away from a balance between tradition with local regional things to imposing that particular single style on everything as sort of a uniformity which i think was it was a mistake of the system um this is the downside as but there is definitely

a positive about unifying the tradition, a common voice, a common witness to the world. And that, I think, is a big part of this bonus. Eric, if you want to take about a minute to respond. Yeah, I think that, you know, maybe perhaps Roman Catholics have over-idealized epistemological certainty with having an infallible machinery being able to output correct answers. Obviously, things are not as smooth as that. Things are much more crooked. So I think that there like the Donatists, the Donatist controversy for the sake of the faithful, God works even through sinful ministers in order to maintain the visible unity of the church.

In the same way, I think God does have a visible organ that does render permanent and visibly permanent the oneness of the church. and visibly permanent, the oneness of the church, and that requires there to be an authoritative organ that settles disputes without being able to be challenged. All right, we have a super chat here from Jeremy Smith, who says, and maybe Father can respond this time, so we'll go to you first here, Eric. If Constantinople shares authority with rome as the second rome then shouldn't moscow share this authority as the third room eric is that for me first oh yeah

yeah okay well um yeah this this would require a long answer but but no, it doesn't require Moscow as third Rome because, number one, you would need a canonical procedure to make Moscow third Rome. You don't have that. And number two, from a Roman Catholic point of view, I don't believe in the transferability of the Roman prerogatives because I think they were divinely instituted once. because I think they were divinely instituted once, in order for them to be altered by that scope of magnanimity would require a fresh divine institution. So I would believe in the divine irreversibility of the old Rome, much less second Rome, and then even far more less third and fourth and fifth Romes, et cetera, et cetera. Father?

and fourth and fifth roams etc etc father um yeah the the logic to support the equality of um new rome is that the emperor who has the authority to determine the city of rome um is one who determines that he determined that constant was going to to be Rome. He identified it with the Hell of the Senate. His intention was not to simply be imperial residence, but the city would be Rome, that the city would carry all the gravitas, the whole tradition of what it was to be the city of Rome, in a new location. And this is why the church went,

oh, that bishop there of Byzantium is now the bishop of Rome. Therefore, all authority that belongs to the bishop of Rome is also his because he is also the bishop of Rome, as in New Rome. This is what the canons state. So there is no real reason to go to Third Rome because you would need the emperor of the Roman Empire to specifically establish Moscow as the capital of the empire at the time. And it's not a transfer of power, I'd like to state.

It's the sharing of the same power that is also already in Rome. It doesn't leave Rome. It stays there as priority. But it's also manifest because it's also Rome. It's the same power that's manifest in both cities. So anyway, that's my... Thank you very much. We'll address this to you, Father, this next question.

This comes from Francophone8. Thanks for your super chat. And then, Eric, you can respond. Francophone asks, what about the different types of disunity among the national Orthodox churches? Why isn't the Pope the first among equals for the Orthodox? Only one can be first.

Ah, well, the Orthodox have different national churches, but they still recognize each other, and they have the diptychs in the first place, there's Constantinople and then Alexandria and stuff. So they still recognize that. I think there's a particular schism between Rome and Russia at the moment, but the Moscow Patriarchs still recognize the Petrine C's, Alexandria, or at least Antioch, if not Alexandria.

So it's still connected into that Petrine C system. The reason why Rome, old Rome, is not in it is because it's considered that her teachings have become heretical, that she has moved away from a witness to the Catholic faith of the church, and that she's teaching something different. And therefore, there's no way that they can sort of say that we're sharing a common tradition. She's lost her role as portraying that shared apostolic tradition. So that's why she's not recognized as such. tradition. So that's why she's not recognized as such. Okay. Eric?

Yeah, I would say that I think this is one of the reasons why I didn't choose Eastern Orthodoxy, because I see the divine institution of a singular head being vital to ecclesiology, not just because of an epistemological need, but because that's what the scripture and the tradition shows for. And today, we have a massive divide. I think that most Orthodox scholars in the world today would agree that primacy in Orthodoxy is hotly disputed. There are many, there's a whole council of bishops in the Orthodox Church in the late 19th century that completely rejected the idea of a universal primate with prerogatives of jurisdiction. The largest Orthodox Church today, the Russian Orthodox Church, its own synod has condemned the idea of a universal primate as papism. And Metropolitan Hilarion has

said that Roman Catholic ecclesiology has encroached into the Orthodox Church through this ideology. Of course, Constantinople takes a different position, but even the patriarch of Constantinople today, Mark Olymew, he doesn't believe the primacy of Constantinople has anything to do with the Apostle Peter. At best, it's a reflection, but there is no deposit of primacy to Peter over the Apostles. He hasn't been emphatic saying that they were all equals and that there was only a primacy of honor in Peter over the Apostles in the Church. So I think that the Orthodox Church does not have a settled view on this issue. Father gives one view, but to be quite honest, I don't know anybody in the first millennium that supports the idea that Constantinople is equal to Rome. I don't know

anybody who ever interpreted the canon. Three of Constantinople won, 28 of Chalcedon, or 36 of Trullo in that way. All right, this question is for Eric. Let's see here. Do you think—this comes from our patron David Zapata—he says, do you think the debates about ultramontanism and Gallicanism—am I saying that right? Gallicanism? Yes. Am I saying that right? Galatianism? Reflect a development in the doctrine of the papacy. Is ultramontanism or the unum sanctum papacy a dogmatic or binding belief for Catholics?

So if you can go to that. Yeah, I would say that it is. And I would say that there's a tension with the correct view of primacy. So you have the view that tries to concentrate all power in the Pope. And then you've got this view on the other hand, which says that the bishops and the Pope are basically equal and they are accountable to each other. And then you have something in the middle,

which of course is the most uncomfortable because it creates tensions. We always want to go either to full power. And we don't, our nature doesn't want to go to this middle tension. And that middle tension is where the Catholic Church has always gone, which is the Pope does have universal jurisdiction. He can issue teachings which don't require the consent of the bishops and which must be binding. However, the tension part of it is we also believe that under the providence of God, the Pope of Rome, the successor of Peter, will always abide by the consensus. He will always abide by a sizable voice of the Episcopate, of the successors of the

apostles. We also believe that the normal modus operandi is for a Pope to judge with bishops in a council or by prior collaboration with the bishops. And so you should always have Pope and bishops working together while recognizing that the bishops are accountable to the pope and that the pope has certain sacred rights that are not conditional upon the bishops. And, of course, we always want to say that now that falls into that ditch or that falls into this ditch. And I think the Vatican Council 1 and Vatican Council 2, if you read Lumen Gentium, gives a very good balance. But it is tense. All right. Father? Yeah, well, in our perspective, it's a sign rather of what we call the apostolic tradition

living on in the local regional rights, the Zagalicans and stuff, the proper rights due to the metropolitans and the things in each place, the rights of local customs, etc., which these churches had. So you have your different way of ritual, a slightly different way of organization, discipline, the governance within the local churches. And this was a right of these churches. And you see that being increasingly encroached over centuries from the schism. And you see that being increasingly encroached over centuries from the schism. And this harkens back to the oldest sense of this being shared and proper rights of his bishops, which was generally shrouded by an ultramontanism. But I agree with Eric that there is trying to be a balance between that, while not denying that, of the collegiality, et cetera,

from Vatican II. And he's right. It tries to sit on a fence. I'm not quite sure if it's the right fence. I've gone too far. But nevertheless, I sort of agree with Eric on that point. But I think it's a sign that they've corrupted the tradition. All right.

This question is for you, Father. It comes from Luigi. He says, Father Pat, how can an Eastern Council be summoned in the Orthodox Church and unify without an emperor? In the Catholic Church, the papacy has the power to do so when there is a problem in the Church, like at Trent or Vatican I. Great question.

Well, the first thing is, do we need to? In some ways, the Orthodox Church, we rely on tradition. So the tradition has been given incomplete in the past. The ecumenical councils are witnesses to it. So in many ways, as far as most doctrines, about everything we need to do is actually trying to keep it consistent with what's already been given and do something weird is almost impossible now. So much has been delivered to us that the need or necessity of an ecumenical council has been reduced a lot. Nevertheless, in this situation there's two possible solutions. One, the lack of an emperor devolves, or the

emperor's authority devolves onto the ecumenical patriarch. Now this is what the ecumenical patriarch claims, so therefore in the absence of the emperor he can call an ecumenical council, which is what he tried to do with Crete. Of course, people like Rowan go, no, no bishop or hierarchical ecclesiastical power can hold such an authority, and therefore we're not going to obey you on that because you don't have that authority because you are a bishop. So that's one solution which hasn't worked very well. The other solution is, well, the emperor was the universal authority to which all bishops had to come. So he could drag everyone there because he was the nominal universal

authority. Even people from outside the empire, from Persia itself, came because he ordered it, because he was sort of symbolically universal. So we could replace that by what else? Like the UN, the UN Security Council could pass the creed ordering the bishops to come and give and sort the mess out. So whether they have the will or would be willing to do so is another matter. But that sort of authority could work as a UN resolution that demands or things. It's just whether the UN has the essence of authority as an emperor to command them to come. That's where the key comes in. But anyway, those are the two solutions that could be used to solve that problem.

Eric? Yeah, I would say it's—I think it's a debilitating problem in the Orthodox Church today. We're going on a century of an attempt to have a pan-Orthodox synod in order to address the many problems that plague the Orthodox Church in terms of canonical abuses and issues of doctrine, I would add. But not that we don't have our own problems in the Catholic Church.

However, as Father Ratzinger said in his book, "'Church Politics and Ecumenism, he foresaw that the Orthodox Church would never really be able to get a pan-Orthodox synod because the criteria for such a thing is requiring cooperation with all the members and heads of the Orthodox Church. And in order to call a council without that need, you have to have a distinct, partial power of unification in a subject who can order the rest. And I think that the only ecclesiology that can suffice for that is where you have a patriarchal head who has that power of unification. You can't have the power to unify unless you have some element of coercion behind the order. If what the Patriarch of Constantinople says is a suggestion or if he convenes a council, even if he thinks it has authority, the other heads of the church can simply say, hey, our ecclesiology on primacy hasn't been settled. The canons don't say much about this on a universal sphere. So we just don't we're just not going to go along with it.

And the Orthodox Church remains divided on the issue. And it's simply that. And the Council of Crete that was attempted in 2016 is proof positive that just four out of the 14 autocephalous bodies could omit themselves from a pan-Orthodox synod, and that immediately demotes the Council from pan-Orthodox. Now, Constantinople thinks that it's authoritative, but most of the Orthodox Church does not. So I think that the Catholic Church has the advantage, but I also think it matches the apostolic tradition that we see from the ancient principles of Petrine primacy. This question comes from Zed. Thank you for your super chat, Zed. Question for Eric, and then Father, you can respond. Shouldn't the infallibility of the Pope be in the Nicene Creed if it's necessary Christian teaching?

Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, it would have been helpful, right? Everything would have been resolved in the 4th century. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary because the same rule would end up falsifying so many other absolutely essential Christian teachings like the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that it's a real sacrifice, propitiatory sacrifice. And there's other teachings that, you know, oil is used to give the gift of the Holy Spirit. A bishop's hands has to bless the myrrh. Without that, you don't have everlasting salvation the triple immersion of baptism for the orthodox for us the the requirement of of it being said in

the proper form and matter i mean i can go on and on there's probably an encyclopedia of essential dogmatic teachings or secondary dogmatic facts that are not in the Nicene Council, that if you were to throw that into the fire, you would completely destroy the Christian faith. So I don't think that would be a fair criteria. However, I do agree and have sympathy with the questioner. That would have been nice if it were there in the Nicene Creed. I agree with Eric. I forget if it was going to be handy if it was already there. I couldn't argue against it. Sorry, that would have missed out on the fun of this debate. But nevertheless, I agree.

There's many things that are not in the creed. And as God wills, that's what is, well, the Nicene, all the Constantinople creed, I'll point out that there's actually two of them, that are not in there, which are still necessary for faith. So, yeah, just the same as Eric. It might have been handy, but there's some things out there. It's not surprising that it's not there, if it could have been there.

I could take it to my side and say, hey, hey, it proves my point, but no. Okay. Maybe we'll do a couple more questions here. I'm trying to go from Father to Eric in order, but sometimes it's difficult because the questions are asked specifically for certain people. So this question, I suppose, is probably for Eric, but Father, you can take as much time as you'd like to respond as well. How would the Catholic Church justify papal supremacy and hold to the filioque, seeing as popes under Catholic definition made dogmatic statements

anathematizing the use of the phrase in the creed. Eric? Is that for me first? Okay, yes. Okay, so we distinguish, as Catholics, we distinguish, you know, apostolic tradition, divine revelation, and ecclesiastical tradition. The creedal construction is not part of apostolic or divine revelation. We know that because several different forms of creeds were used by members of the church who died and who

lived and died as saints. So the creedal construction is part of ecclesiastical tradition. The popes are free to issue an anathema on a disciplinary matter for people who don't adhere to a certain rule. So for example, the pope could issue a decree placing an anathema on somebody if they baptized without triple immersion, full immersion. He's free to issue an anathema. Whoever doesn't do that. However, he could also say now we're going to modify this for reasons of culture, for reasons of expedience, that pouring is adequate. In that case, you know, speaking if it's an ecclesiastical tradition for the different modes to be available, one could be anathema at one time and another time it could be permissible. So in that case, no, it's not required that the,

you know, that infallibility is falsified because the Pope's anathematized people who made additions to the creed, and then later the authority of the church spoke and said, no, well, the creed can have additions. So, you know, it really all depends on whether you understand the creed as an ecclesiastical tradition or an irreformable divine revelation. Catholics do not understand it in that way. Okay. Father? Right. Yeah, well, we have a different opinion on this. This is one, I think, challenges about the way papacy works. Orthodox Church tradition is not just something that is a faith of morals.

It's a bit of practice as well. The canons and the practice of a church remain stable. That's why we seem so old-fashioned, et cetera, and one of the things that we do, because our traditions and practices are also stable and unchangeable. We can't go around and say, well, we're going to shorten the fast or this or that. Now, we've got a great economia, which we don't strictly enforce everything all the time.

But nevertheless, the rules don't change and they are unchangeable. So that and for creed is the testimony of God. That is the divine thing. It stands up beside the scriptures. There's no way you can change it or modify it or do anything to it without walking in and saying you can change the scriptures and add words to the scriptures deliberately i'm not talking about scribal errors it's like that yeah impossible in the church and that the pope um can in matters of discipline for us, one demands obedience.

You have to obey it. And the next change in mind, it does another thing. This inconsistency is chopping and changing from one thing to another. It's a huge sign of the lack of the truth of the Church. There's no stability in it. It's tradition. It just does the tradition. It's up to the will of the Pope at the time.

But we would include the practice of the church. So to me, this is one of the things where I particularly won't be Roman Catholic because it is chopping and changing the rules of what tradition is. So yeah, that would be my... All right. This is a good question here, and I'll let you answer it first, Father. Italian, thank you for your super chat, says,

Catholics claim orthodoxy is divided, yet you have multiple different theologies through your admittance of Eastern Catholics who hold views that contradict Rome. How can you condemn heretics like Nestorians when they're in your church? I suppose this is perhaps more for Eric, but whoever wants

to take that first i'll answer shortly okay i find that rather inconsistent and i i think this is a really big problem with modern roman catholic um position i much prefer um the position on me much more respect vatican one Vatican I going into Vatican II and and what's right thing I said and stuff about grace sort of emerging out of a church and all these things and sort of oh we can come in you can reject our theology sort of long as you normally do it but you don't have to conform to it in your creed so you can believe in your heart something different but as long as you stay down I think it's a bit more formal than that but to me that But as long as you stay down, I think it's a bit more formal than that.

But to me, that is a striking problem and inconsistency with what I see in Catholicism. But Eric will have a pretty good answer. Yeah, well, I would simply say that the Catholic Church does not welcome or invite that kind of dissidence by Eastern Catholics. There's a variety of theology, but the substance of the facts, the substance of the theological points, have to be equal. However, there is a couple of different ways of reaching certain theologies, and if you don't like that, then you wouldn't like Athanasius or Hilaria of Poitiers, because they understood that there was different ways of referring to the Trinity, but you could speak of an equal substance. And so, you know, the Eastern Catholics are required to be consistent and compatible with all of Catholic dogmatic teaching, and anything that violates or contradicts

would be absolutely excluded from allowability. So the issue of the Nestorians, they may be, I don't, we don't invite Nestorians, we don't invite people into the church to reject the decrees of any of the ecumenical councils, one of which condemned Nestorius very clearly. So he may be referring to the fact that certain Eastern churches have been allowed for some reason to uphold a memory of Nestorius. He's certainly not a canonized saint in the Catholic Church. He's certainly not a canonized saint in the Catholic Church.

But, you know, this is a problem that would probably need to be kicked up to Rome to look at more closely. However, you know, the Orthodox Church as well, you know, is dealing with certain issues on this in terms of, you know, I wouldn't look at David Ben Lee Hart, who just received the Patristics Award for the year 2019, who's openly Orthodox and never disciplined by any cleric in the Orthodox Church, as an indication that the Orthodox Church now allows universalism and his sort of dissidence. I wouldn't allow the constant accusations of heresy towards Patriarch Bartholomew, yet there being no ecclesial pronouncements upon the matter, as if now the Orthodox Church allows schism and heresy within its own bosom. I wouldn't go to that extent. Of course, if somebody wanted to enforce the Catholic to be

that way, I would simply turn the table and say the problem is equal on your end. So I do think there are inconsistencies. There are definitely members of the Catholic Church that go against the Catholic teaching. President Biden is a most popular example today. However, when it comes to what the Church requires and what the Church has taught and what it demands is clear. Okay, why don't we finish with this question. Maybe I'll give it to you, Eric, and then I'll let Father have the final word before we go into closing statements. This comes from Stephen Brosco.

Thanks for being a patron, Stephen. You say, a question for both. What evidence would you need to see or to convince you that Catholicism or Orthodoxy, respectively, or vice versa, I guess, depending on who's answered it, is true. So what is it you would need to see? Since, I mean, we all like to consider ourselves as people who just want the truth, but of course we're all plagued with biases.

We all know that if we're self-reflective. But what evidence would you need to see, Eric, to convince you that Orthodoxy is true? And then, Father, what evidence would you need to see to see that Catholicism is true? Eric, you can go first. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. That's a good question. So what I would want is for orthodoxy's principles to be consistently upheld by the Scripture and the tradition as evidenced in history, church fathers and ecumenical councils.

What I see all over the place in the first millennium are many countless saints who teach something that's absolutely contradictory to modern day Orthodox teaching. And that is that the Sea of Rome was the principle of unity, had a power of unification, which consisted of jurisdiction divinely given back during the apostolic time given to St. Peter by Christ. And divinely irreversible in the Roman church that is proclaimed too often and by too many saints. It's echoed in ecumenical councils, as I brought out. It's recognized by Protestant and Orthodox scholars. At the very least, you have a great division in the patristic evidence. And if that division is so egregious that history no longer becomes a good compass to follow towards the truth, then both the Catholic and the Orthodox and

anybody else is really debilitated when it comes to finding the truth through history. So I think the Orthodox Church really suffers from its claim that Rome was like the preeminent sea of the first millennium, and then it fell in the 11th century, when scholars today all recognize that those claims in the 11th century were already being claimed in the early centuries of the church. I quoted Archbishop Stylianus Harkiniakis of Australia. He's a scholar, Orthodox scholar. He admitted this goes back to Stephen. Father Lauren Clearnor admitted it goes back to Victor. Father Alexander Schmemann, admitted, the formula of Hormizdas is the essence of the papal doctrine. So you have a division in the history of the

Church. I think the greater probability is that the Catholic faith is true. If the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology had the majority of the fathers in the councils, then I think I would consider orthodoxy more. Okay. And Father, just to refresh you there, the question had to do with what evidence would you have to see to maybe be convinced of Catholicism? Well, the claim is that the papacy is there to preserve apostolic tradition. If I actually saw that in all aspects other than the claims of the

papacy, that it had maintained apostolic tradition of faith and practice, as at the time of Viscism, or even really up to sort of Vatican II, then I would be quite inclined to say, great. So if the faith and the practice had been consistent, but it's quite clear historically that the Orthodox Church in faith and practice is far more consistent with what was historically there, than what we see in Rome today, apart from the claim of Roman papacy. And so all I'm getting is there's a claim of Roman papacy, but I don't see the fruits of it. I don't see the fruit of consistency of the traditions. I don't see the fruit of consistent practice or doctrine or

anything other than the claim of papal continuance. And this is just not convincing to me. I needed to see the fruits of that. Whereas in the Orthodoxy, there's many problems indeed, but there's no one teaching that I have to formally believe that these things are not errors and problems that can be fixed because the teaching itself has no one going around changing that, whereas the teaching itself in the West has been changed. The Pope's changed the rules, been changed the pope's changed the rules

they change the canons they change this they change that and i'm sorry that's just the rule of one autocratic mindset it is not the rule of tradition and i i much prefer the rule of tradition the rule of law what we've received we go and argue points there might be a whole lot of disagreements about those points but we we receive the set tradition as passed on, and we set our time arguing over that matter. But I'm not interested in a sense when autocratic authority can change rules left, right, and center as and when it pleases them. And if Rome hadn't done that and had been consistent in a lot of things other than what is sort of different to the Eastern thing, I would be much more inclined to be with it,

than what is sort of different from the Eastern thing, I would be much more inclined to be with it, and I probably would be with it, but I just don't see it actually continuing to transition. So its claim is false to me in that drive. Thank you very much, Father Patrick. Okay, so we're about to move into our final closing statements, and we're going to have Eric give his first five-minute closing statement first, and then Patrick, Father Patrick, I beg your pardon. But before we do that, I want to suggest

that if you enjoy these debates, if you'd like to see more of them, if you want to help support this channel, if you want to get in a pints with Aquinas beer stein, I guess we need like a pints with Maximus or something for our Orthodox brothers, But you could become a patron over at patreon.com slash mattfradd. When you do, you join a growing community of people who are having really substantive discussions about the faith. We give you things for free in return, like books sent to your door. As I say, beer steins. You get access to our private online courses

that are being taught by professors in Catholic universities and things like this. So go over to, if you want, patreon.com slash Matt Fradd. The link is in the description below, patreon.com slash Matt Fradd, and that helps us to continue doing the work that we are doing. All right, so let's move into our five-minute closing statements. Eric, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Matt.

Yeah, so I really appreciate this debate. You know, as a closing remark, I would simply say that my opening statement, I brought many examples from the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Councils, and Decrees of Ecumenical Councils that testify to the four parts of the Vatican decree. When Catholics say that the successor of Peter has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, we simply mean that Christ gave to St. Peter this power without any intermediation. So it wasn't a power that was given to the church first and then given to the bishop of Rome or then given to Peter. It was given directly to Saint Peter and a lot of the testimonies I brought out for that testimony out and as I was saying

before Protestant Orthodox scholars recognize that today scholars recognize that there is sort of a two distinct ecclesiologies roughly speaking that developed in the early centuries and eventually, you know, grew into the division that came about in the second millennium. However, I would say that the orthodoxy of elder Rome being superior and Orthodox theologians have recognized this, that the saints all looked to Rome in the first millennium as a bulwark of orthodoxy. Its constant tradition on this matter is unmistakable, unambiguous. And if we were to X off half the church in order to preserve the orthodox truth today, then I think we're undercutting too much and we're're falsifying both catholicism and orthodoxy so i think that none of the opening statement remarks i made were really dealt with especially the formula

for mistas which doesn't just have a few acceptances it was accepted by many many bishops in the east many bishops in the west and it was signed again and again in other times of reunion between the East and the West. So I would simply, and also some of the objections we heard about, you know, the appeals court and, you know, Cyprian of Carthage, the evidences I reduced from other saints were not dealt with. It was as if Cyprian should be the house that wins all. But it's very clear that so many other fathers and councils contradicted that. And so I don't think that was adequately dealt with. And in terms of evidence, I don't believe that finding evidence of the Pope going out and being Rambo on all the churches in the East and ordaining clerics at a whim and,

you know, taking his horse and going around all over the East to ordain bishops and clerics is the bare minimum criteria. All you need is Christ established Peter as the primate, that primacy is indefectible and irreversible, it's fixed in the Roman see, and it involves jurisdiction and supremely authoritative teaching. All those four elements are the bare minimum evidence you would need, and we have so many testimonies in that regard. The bishops of the Orthodox Church themselves agreed to this partially in 1274, but even more substantially at the Council of Florence in the 15th century. Father mentioned how he doesn't want an autocratic will who can change things left, right, and whenever. But the popes have always worked in tandem with bishops and even with Eastern Orthodox bishops.

But the Orthodox bishops never sustained those decrees because they've redeveloped an idea for an epistemological recognition of councils and ecclesial authority, which today is debilitating the Orthodox Church completely because it can't take the first step to making a universal resolution on a single matter. Okay, Father, you have five minutes for your closing statement. Right, I'll just read something out I've written rather than respond directly to Eric's points there. The church is one body about one head

Christ. The papacy is built on a construct of the church as one universal body on earth about one head, the Pope, who is the best bishop over all the particular churches. However, the claim responses is this is not apostolic tradition. Apostolic tradition is that one church in each

place, centered on each city, is the Catholic Church founded on Christ and the apostles, as presented by the bishops, presbyters and deacons, just as St. Ignatius of Antioch testifies, in like manner, let the reverence of the deacons be as appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the son of a father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and the assembly of apostles, apart from these nothing may be called church. The church is not defined about a pope and a college of bishops, where are the universal presbyters and deacons, but about a bishop, presbyters and deacons in each place. Each church about the bishop is the Catholic church, and there is no higher order

in the church above the bishop, who is singular in all in will in his church. A church unlike Israel, centered on one place, is found complete in every place centered on the bishop. There is no singular temple or high priest on earth for the church because there is only one high priest, Christ, at the heavenly altar. The reality of the universal church is completely realized in each church on earth with no higher realization on earth the bishops gathering around metropolitans patriarchs and the sea of peter are not doing so as a singular earthly organization with a singular head the church that is converging circles of unity to maintain the reality that each local church is the same as the others and contains the others being itself the complete communion

of a church in each place. The hierarchical structures needed to maintain this and to ensure that all remain one in tradition, faith, and body, they need to converge on the one sea of Peter. This one does not rule them as a bishop or bishops, but only so far as matters pertaining to uniting them in the common apostolic tradition, because there is no authority over a bishop excepting to ensure that his own authority

is exercised within the canons, and that is manifesting the authority of Christ. The metatropologists have no immediate episcopal authority within another bishop's church, because this would deny the bishop as Christ in his own church, and that the completeness of the Catholic Church is in each bishop's church. The ranking of the hierarchs comes not with a submission, but it belongs to the city. The claims of Vatican I are contrary to this ecclesiology and propose something different,

but it effectively denies the Catholic Church in each place. Rather than unify the churches, it reduces them to one earthly church. The church, though, while manifest in every place, is not of this world and cannot be reduced to one place. That is one bishop or one earthly head, but must remain in every place with many bishops, one in each place, united as one, but not reduced to one. As such, the doctrine of the papal primacy, given at Vatican I, is not true to apostolic tradition.

Thank you very much, Father and Eric. You know, before we wrap up here, I'd love to give you each a chance if there's some way you would like to point people, maybe a book you've written or a website or a podcast you run so people can learn more about you after the debate's over. Eric? Yeah, thank you so much, Matt. Thank you, Father Patrick. You know, we've known each other for years and I cherish your friendship and I think

this was a wonderful experience. So I would say that I do have a lengthy book that people should look forward to. It's on the issue of the working title is The Papacy, Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox. And there I have opportunity to explain more in detail many of the things which we could not go into in the debate today, and I think would be fair for both Orthodox and Catholic readers. So look forward to that. I show up on Reason and Theology quite frequently as a co-host. A podcast, a YouTube channel, correct? Yeah, YouTube channel.

As a co-host. YouTube channel, correct? Yeah, YouTube channel. And I also have my website, which I haven't been as prolific with lately. But you could see the occasional article on erickebar.org. Father? Yeah, I've got my PhD written as a book called The Church, Deifying Relations. You should be able to find it on Google.

It's on Amazon. I'll put a link in the description for you after the fact. The theory behind what I'm discussing in this debate today. So that's there. I've got another book on the minor orders of a church, which actually tries to look at the minor orders across East and Western practice, so looking at the ancient common tradition of that so that might be of interest to some people it's a bit more of a technical one you'll find it under i i go by john ramsay is my secular name so you might spot it under under there but the title that i want is john patrick ramsay or

and things like that so um yeah and i've got a blog, sacredtraditions.wordpress.com, but I don't really maintain it very often. But if there's a flood of interest or something, I will pop things out. And like Eric, I'm also on R&T and they get me to publish the odd article and things like that. So you can find me there for our continuing debates, which will nevertheless go on. Yeah, and I want to just kind of stress that, because both of you have referenced Reason Theology, and we haven't kind of maybe specified this is a YouTube channel. It's not just, you know, you can find me on Reason Theology. It's an excellent YouTube channel. Michael Lofton,

I believe, is the host, and pops up on my feed from time to time, and I'm always very impressed with the substantive discussions that are taking place there. And my hat goes off to Michael Lofton, who I presume is the one organizing all of these excellent discussions. As somebody who runs a YouTube channel myself, I know how difficult that can be. So I'd highly recommend people go check out Reason and Theology podcast as well. And I want to say thank you to all of you who have watched today's debate. We have a couple of—we're trying to do a debate every month. Next month we have a debate between Father Gregory Pyne and Dr. Janet Smith on the

morality of lying. In April, we'll host a debate between Trent Horn and Matt Dillahunty on whether or not the belief in the resurrection is reasonable. The month after that, we hope to be having a Catholic-Lutheran

debate on justification. So we've always got a lot going on here on the channel, and if you'd like to subscribe and click that bell button, that would certainly help us out. Thanks very much for being here. I'm going to make a 1 teaspoon of salt 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper

1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black pepper 1 teaspoon of black flour 1 cup of water 1 cup of water 1 cup of flour 1 cup of water

1 cup of flour 1 cup of water I'm going to make a you