Refuting Ubi Petrus

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Has anyone seen the videos of Ubi Petrus on youtube? His work has been shredding Catholic apologists left and right. Has anyone come up with an adequate rebuttal to his defense of Orthodoxy/attack on Catholicism?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Slava na viki! Ubi Petrus is an Orthodox blog. He might be “shredding Catholic apologists…” but he can’t shred the Catholic Faith.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Well from what I’ve been hearing (second hand from a video on Matt Fradd’s youtube channel where he’s asking if any Orthodox Christian would be willing to debate Erick Ybarra) and a lot of people suggested Ubi Petrus. I have watched a couple videos and his arguments do seem to trounce the Catholic position. But, that said, I am no theologian. Even less so when it comes to Patristics. I’m not saying the arguments “can’t” be countered. But to my limited knowledge, they haven’t been so far. So I was wondering if anyone knew where to look.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

First of all, don’t let this shake your faith. Second, pray and learn more about the Catholic Faith. As the old saying goes: A theologian is a man of prayer, and a man of prayer is a theologian.

My late mother didn’t have much formal catechesis but she was a very wise lady.

True story: In March 2013, all the pundits were speculating on who would be the next pope. My mom & I were watching the Cardinals process into the conclave, and among them the name of ++Bergoglio was mentioned. My mom took one look at him and said matter-of-factly: “He’d make a nice pope.” Well, he got elected and is now Pope Francis. My mom picked out the Pope!

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Well I don’t let it shake my faith anyways since I see Orthodox and Catholic as two sides of the same coin. We have slight variations in theology and are in schism with one another, but Catholicism acknowledges that souls go to Heaven as a normal means through the Orthodox Church due to them having a valid priesthood, seven valid Sacraments, etc.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Catholicism acknowledges that souls go to Heaven as a normal means through the Orthodox Church due to them having a valid priesthood, seven valid Sacraments, etc.

That doesn’t quite fit somehow. I know they have valid Sacraments & valid priesthood but they are not part of the Catholic Church. IIRC, it was St. Jerome who said that the ark of the Church is the Barque of Peter.

I need to sign off now. It’s going for quarter of 1 a.m. & I’m past my bedtime. More tomorrow (or today depending on your time zone). Good night!

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

They have a valid priesthood, meaning they maintain Apostolic Succession and trace their Bishops back to the Apostles as well. There are variations in our theologies, enough so that we remain in schism with one another. In that regard our faiths are different. But not so different as to become a different religion. In the 1970s a Roman Catholic could fulfill his Sunday obligation at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (receiving Communion could only be permitted with the approval of the Roman Bishop and Orthodox Bishop/Metropolitan). Even today, inter-communion is practiced in some places between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And yes, St Jerome does say that. But it’s interesting to note that for the Early Church (western and eastern) the See of Peter was a collective (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem/Alexandria-I can’t remember that last one off the top of my head). The Church is determined by Christ’s presence in the Sacraments. Not exclusively on who the Roman Pontiff is. I know this is how Roman Catholics view the universal church, but this has never been the view of Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. God Bless!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I know this is how Roman Catholics view the universal church, but this has never been the view of Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. God Bless!

Actually, visible communion was always view of East (Catholics and Orthodox alike). Your position borders Anglican Branch Theory- have you heard about it ? Historically, Church has known heresies that have retained True Sacraments- for example Donatists. However, does that mean that they were part of True Church? A resounding no comes from both East and West.

But it’s interesting to note that for the Early Church (western and eastern) the See of Peter was a collective (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem/Alexandria-I can’t remember that last one off the top of my head).

I know what you mean. You mean Pentarchy. But that wasn’t exactly how it worked. There were Three Petrine Sees- Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Later, other Patriarchates were added (Constantinople and Jerusalem). It is worth to note that most Patriarchs protested against this move but influence of Byzantine Emperor made it happen. Constantinople and Jerusalem were never called Petrine Sees. Council of Chalcedon attributed to Constantinople similar power as Rome (which was rejected by other Patriarchs, but somehow remained in practice)… and said those powers (which Rome already supposedly held) is that it can re-judge any Church Trial held anywhere… that it can intervene in affairs of other Churches through appeals and even ordain Bishops outside it’s jurisdiction. Council of Sardica also provides canons that say that even if Constantinople does use this power to re-judge anything… they can’t re-judge Rome and Rome can re-judge the re-judgement of Constantinople so we are clearly shown that even among 3 Petrine Sees, Rome was special

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Well I guess then, ultimately, being part of the true church doesn’t matter. If a “false” church can maintain all 7 valid Sacraments, and Christ deigns to bless their altars by consecrating Himself in the Eucharist, then these people are being saved by their false church, not in spite of it (as would be the case for protestants who make it to Heaven, they being saved in spite of their religion, not because of it). I do hold to the branch theory though I deny the Anglicans are part of it. Their claim to Apostolic Succession died out a long time ago. The Orthodox are a unique case as the split was mutual. They have always operated outside of Rome’s control, even in the first millennium/pre-schism. There likely would never have been a schism if Rome hadn’t forced the issue with trying to force dogmas on the Eastern Churches. Vatican I, while much later, was just a major blow to reopen old wounds. I am very sympathetic to the Orthodox position. Rome has been a bully in the past and until Vatican II, has a long history of bullying the Eastern Catholic Churches. So I tend to take Rome with a grain of salt these days.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well I guess then, ultimately, being part of the true church doesn’t matter. If a “false” church can maintain all 7 valid Sacraments, and Christ deigns to bless their altars by consecrating Himself in the Eucharist, then these people are being saved by their false church, not in spite of it

I don’t think there is anything that implies they are saved “by their false Church”. They are saved by the Sacraments but in spite of not being part of Catholic Church. Imagine one Bishop just says “ah I don’t feel so good under Orthodoxy I will just Schism and create my own Church”. Now he has valid Church with valid Sacraments. Is he also part of True Church?

They have always operated outside of Rome’s control, even in the first millennium/pre-schism.

Yes, but as Eastern Catholics. Ecclesiology of current Orthodoxy isn’t as historical as one might think. It is true that Church was not centralized, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say every Bishop was equal or that Patriarchates were not “controlled” by another ones.

There likely would never have been a schism if Rome hadn’t forced the issue with trying to force dogmas on the Eastern Churches.

Which one do you mean? There are many misconceptions about Filioque and mutual excommunications of 1054. What Cardinal Humbert meant in his invalid bull of excommunication was that one can not deny “per Filio” doctrine- this is also something that was held in the East until Patriarch Photius. It is however often misunderstood to mean that Greeks did not use Filioque hence they are excommunicated… which is wrong interpretation.

Rome has been a bully in the past and until Vatican II, has a long history of bullying the Eastern Catholic Churches.

To be fair it wasn’t Rome as much as it was secular government. Have you heard about Western Orthodoxy? It might change your opinion that only West bullied East…

I do hold to the branch theory though I deny the Anglicans are part of it.

I see. It is quite common these days due to ambiguous wording of some documents and Archbishop Zoghby. However, bear with me now.

We know that Church is infallible and that Church has pure faith. Now if indeed Branch Theory is Apostolic Faith then we must be able to find similar cases before where Church was split but it is actually One True Church- from either Orthodox or Catholic point of view. However neither Church believes in this, and Ecumenical Councils led by Holy Spirit have denounced this idea. As famously stated in the Creed, Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

My main point is that if you know Church history, you know that both Catholic and Orthodox Church histories actually heavily contradict this principle of Branch Theory.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Depends on what is considered the defining feature of the Church. Roman Catholicism says communion with the Bishop of Rome. Not that there aren’t other things, but this is the distinctive feature. In the East, it was the Sacraments. This is why you can have Orthodox excommunicating each other (typically for political but sometimes theological reasons) and yet they still acknowledge one another as Orthodox. They still acknowledge the Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox, but there is a much larger gap theologically and EO consider OO theology heretical in certain areas (I’m not versed on that area so I couldn’t tell you specifically). When you look at how messy Church history was/is, and the fact that the role of the Bishop of Rome was something in flux throughout the first millennium and most of the 2nd, the defining feature had always been the Sacraments, the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Patristic Fathers, etc.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In the East, it was the Sacraments.

Again, no. Not in the East. Perhaps in Eastern Orthodoxy but even that is a stretch. In Pre-Schism East, Donatists were considered out of Church but they had valid Sacraments. Are you familiar with Donatist controversy?

When it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, if what you say is true then why are Old Calendarists being shunned as not being part of True Church? Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t even have concept of “valid” Sacraments as we do. They do not have concept of Eucharist being valid in Latin Church or Eastern Catholic Churches… there are some Eastern Orthodox Churches that also re-baptize Catholics because they believe our baptism is invalid.

They still acknowledge the Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox, but there is a much larger gap theologically and EO consider OO theology heretical in certain areas

Oriental Orthodoxy was viewed as straight up heretical by Eastern Orthodoxy at least until 1800’s. Then it started being somewhat better… and Eastern Orthodoxy is still somewhat torn on whether they are or are not heretical.

defining feature had always been the Sacraments, the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Patristic Fathers

Well… Ecumenical Councils yes. I have already said my point about Sacraments… but writings of Church Fathers? They were held as proof of what Saints believed and what Apostolic Faith was, but merely recognizing Church Fathers or their texts had no impact on whether one is or is not in True Church. Could you provide your source or so? This seems wrong.

And when it comes to Ecumenical Councils, are you aware of term “Robber Council” ? Those were Councils that claimed to be Ecumenical but they were not. How did Church choose between which Council is or is not Ecumenical? Hint: Church of Rome and Her approval. Indeed, Orthodox make a point that only if “Church as a whole” accepts the Council then it is valid. But this is always true- because whoever doesn’t accept the Council is out of Church. So if one Bishop holds a Council and says every Christian not named Joe is not saved, and every other Bishop rejects the Council then other Bishops are out of Church and now whole Church accepted the Council.

Actually, Ecumenical Councils and being “out of Church” is very valid proof that not only were Sacraments not indicator of where Church is, but also that not even Faith was. Ecumenical Councils often anathemized people not because of their faith but because they did not respect Church government and unity of the Church as a whole (so, visible communion… and that leads to debunking of Branch Theory).

By the way, it is nice to have discussion with you, may God bless you

 

[Montrose]

they are not part of the Catholic Church.

They are a schismatic part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Genesis315]

They’re not. The Catholic Church teaches at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium that the Church of Christ on earth is “an entity with visible delineation” and the marks that visibly delineate it are “profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.” The Council’s decree on the Eastern Churches sums it up briefly: “The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government”.

Valid sacraments are not enough–being jointed in hierarchical communion (which includes the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, according to Catholic doctrine) is also necessary for the Church to be the Church–otherwise, there would be no such sin as schism.

Granted, we do acknowledge that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.” In the case of the EOs we can go so far as to say they have particular Churches (ie valid bishops and the people attached to them celebrating a common Eucharist). But, they cannot be said to be the one catholic Church as professed in the Creed–that one Church of Christ, cannot be said to subsist in them.

Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium’s used the Latin phrase “subsistit in” to emphasize that permanent and unique identity of the Catholic Church alone as the one Church of Christ. Some tried to interpret this phrase as admitting a branch theory, with said “subsistence” being broader than the Catholic Church. As a result, Rome has had to intervene a few times recently.

Dominus Iesus

The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.

CDF Resp. to Certain Questions Re. Doctrine on the Church

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
…
Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church).

CDF Comm. re same

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church…In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ.

Certainly EOs in good faith, by virtue of their baptism, have a special bond with this Church and they receive their sacraments profitably. But they can’t be said to be the Church professed in the Creed.

 

[Genesis315]

But it’s interesting to note that for the Early Church (western and eastern) the See of Peter was a collective (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem/Alexandria-I can’t remember that last one off the top of my head).

They were never an equal collective. St. Gregory talks of the three places in this letter to the Bishop of Alexandria:

Book VII, Letter 40

What St. Gregory is referring to here by “three places” is the principle of the three original patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order of primacy, which directly governed the three regions of the universal Church (the three regions of the known world: Europe, Africa, and Asia, respectively), with Rome being the final court of appeal (which is why these Patriarchs were turning to Rome, why Rome was telling them what to do in this case, and why they later submitted to Rome certain synodical acts and patriarchal judgments—see Book VII, Letter 34 and Book VIII, Letter 30 for examples; also see Book IX Letter 59 where St. Gregory says all bishops are subject to his See but they should be treated as equals when there is no cause not to).

This whole structure of authority flowed from Peter’s authority at Rome, with Alexandria and Antioch participating in that Petrine authority via their ties of discipleship to Petrine Rome. Rome was always pre-eminent among them.

This order was threatened early on by the imperial See of Constantinople trying to insert itself, first at Constantinople I and of course again by the infamous canon 28 of Chalcedon, which was denied by St. Leo the Great, who cited this same tradition of the three Petrine patriarchates. This original, Apostolic order was consistently disturbed by the theocratic government at Constantinople, which intruded into the Apostolic rights of the native bishops. In fact, the context in which the letter from St. Gregory above referencing the “universal bishop” was written was yet another example of Constantinople trying to do this very thing (the universal bishop controversy, often falsely attributed to the Catholic understanding of primacy, made the “universal bishop” the only one with ordinary authority, with all other bishops being his vicars–St. Gregory denied this to John the Faster in Constantinople and denied others to claim it for himself).

Again, Rome is always considered first and Alexandria and Antioch second and third in all the acts of Councils, etc. The three are never considered tied for first and no other See was numbered with them until politics won out later.

More on this in my next post.

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above.

Rome had primacy by divine right. It was the original “special” See. Alexandria and Antioch were elevated later (see the Council of Nicea) in imitation of Rome and based on their Petrine ties.

As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering.

Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.

This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople. This essentially ended the special roles of Antioch and Alexandria that had developed alongside Rome. But Rome remained fixed like a rock.

So by the time of the schism, the only other one of the original three besides Rome, Antioch, was inconsequential compared to Constantinople. The others were politically created vassals of Constantinople.

For the other erroneous claim that the current schisms among EO Churches is consistent with being the one Church professed in the Creed, see my post linked below (I can’t post it here because I made too many in a row):

Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics Eastern Catholicism

This is definitely an EO take–but it is clearly contrary to our common tradition (again, otherwise there would be no such thing as schism). Many EOs reject a “universal” ecclesiology, even going so far to consider it a corruption (cynically one might argue it is because they understand it logically to lead to the primacy, as some of their own theologians admit it does). Of course, the fact that “catholic” is in the Creed can’t be ignored. The word “catholic” is used by the Fathers to refer t…

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

An argument I see raised a lot that I haven’t seen a Catholic answer yet, is why the Bishop of Rome never exerted his authority over a council. They allege that there has never been a time in the entire span of the historical record of Rome commanding something against the Eastern Churches, and the Eastern Churches submitting. They contend that if Rome “always” had universal jurisdiction, that it’s strange that it never once in the history of the early church, came into play?

I am not learned enough on the Fathers or early Church history to have a grasp of this. But I’ve never seen a proper response to this. Most conversations devolve into quote mining the Early Church Fathers, who were prone to using very flowery language, “Bishop of Bishops, Supreme Bishop, Father of Fathers, etc”. There are plenty of saints who speak in this language to the Bishop of Rome and some Catholics try to use this as a proof in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy. The only problem is this type of language is also used when Bishops of Eastern Churches write to one another.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Doesn’t this create all sorts of problems in our Roman understanding as then it no longer becomes necessary to be Catholic in order to be saved (as the ordinary means of salvation)? If we acknowledge, and we do, the Orthodox Sacraments and that Christ is manifest in their Eucharist, absolves them of their sins in confession, clearly has blessed their churches with miracles (weeping icons, the holy fire at the sepulchre, etc) then their faith must be pleasing to Him on some level.

Personally, I think Rome and the EO get too caught up on “true church” language. It is the same Jesus Christ who shows up on their altars and ours. How can we say we are not united with them? Sure we have split ecclesiastically and our theology has gone in different directions (though none of it is truly irreconcilable to the other). Pope Francis (I believe? Maybe it was JPII) was willing to sit down with leadership from the Orthodox and Protestant worlds to discuss what Papal primacy is/should look like going forward. Ultimately I don’t think the protestant side of the argument has a dog in the fight, but if the Orthodox leadership and Rome could come to an agreement on the primacy of peter, what it means, what are it’s practical applications and limitations, etc. then I think that the schism would end and the handful of theological disagreements could quickly be resolved.

 

[Isaac14]

but if the Orthodox leadership and Rome could come to an agreement on the primacy of peter, what it means, what are it’s practical applications and limitations, etc. then I think that the schism would end and the handful of theological disagreements could quickly be resolved.

Fortunately this is indeed happening. This dialogue is slowly and carefully working through these issues. If you’re curious, the documents and agreed statements produced thus far can be found here.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

An argument I see raised a lot that I haven’t seen a Catholic answer yet, is why the Bishop of Rome never exerted his authority over a council.

Read about Robber Council of Ephesus, Council of Trullo and even Chalcedon’s Canon 28.
Pope St. Gregory (Pre-Schism Saint) also said that he can annul Eastern synods “with strike of a pen”. Yet he was not opposed by Eastern Patriarchs for saying this.

They allege that there has never been a time in the entire span of the historical record of Rome commanding something against the Eastern Churches, and the Eastern Churches submitting. They contend that if Rome “always” had universal jurisdiction, that it’s strange that it never once in the history of the early church, came into play?

It did though. There are several cases. This article might be helpful It contains overview of several cases where Popes have exerted their authority over the East. It also contains some “flowery language” points you mention, so just feel free to ignore those.

I am not learned enough on the Fathers or early Church history to have a grasp of this.

When I started believing in God, I encountered a big problem… which Church is the correct one? Is there even a correct Church? So I read many great things from many great sides… I know about Orthodox points, Catholic points and I am not saying that I am expert myself, but I know my stuff. What you are saying is something many people believe, but historical proofs actually don’t point that way. It is a common misconception.

Most conversations devolve into quote mining the Early Church Fathers, who were prone to using very flowery language, “Bishop of Bishops, Supreme Bishop, Father of Fathers, etc”. There are plenty of saints who speak in this language to the Bishop of Rome and some Catholics try to use this as a proof in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy. The only problem is this type of language is also used when Bishops of Eastern Churches write to one another

I agree. Some points being made aren’t really points being made… that much is true for either side.

Doesn’t this create all sorts of problems in our Roman understanding as then it no longer becomes necessary to be Catholic in order to be saved (as the ordinary means of salvation)?

Well, not when you understand they are saved “despite” them not being Catholic. It is same with Protestants- baptism does erase their sins. Does that create problems? Not at all. If Protestant gets baptized moments before dying, he would theoretically have no sins.