Refuting Ubi Petrus

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Personally, I think Rome and the EO get too caught up on “true church” language.

Actually I think it isn’t done nearly enough by Rome right now. We know that we must hold Apostolic Faith, and Apostolic Faith means something that was there with Apostles and remained until now. Holy Spirit guides the Church and so Church won’t forget Apostolic Doctrine. If this duality of the Church is Apostolic Doctrine, then where is it found historically? Nowhere- it is actually highly opposed even by Early Church during Donatist controversy. Therefore if it is not Apostolic Doctrine, why do we invent what was not handed down to us by Apostles? Are we so wise that we can create our own religion and call it Truth?

Ultimately I don’t think the protestant side of the argument has a dog in the fight

If both Churches were wrong about unity of the Church, who can say they were not wrong about invalidity of Protestant Sacraments?

 

[Genesis315]

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.

I don’t see why. Schism is still a sin, but like any sin, there has to be a disorded act of will. A person would still be excluded from salvation and receive the sacraments sacrilegiously by becoming or remaining EO if the person is at fault for it. But being mistaken in good faith is not a sin.

Sacraments being available to such good faith “wayfarers” is a testament to God’s loving providence despite sins of separation committed in the past. Likewise, the sacrifice itself being offered, despite the worthiness or lack thereof of the priest, has merit as well for the whole world, since it is the same as Christ’s. All these things properly belong to the Church of Christ, even if they were taken elsewhere by those who separated in the past. For those in good faith, it provides a nourishing and even salvific link to the one Catholic Church.

This is not a new idea. As St. Augustine explained regarding heretics (heresy is worse than schism, so clearly the same would apply to schism):

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

But again, we can’t ignore Christ’s will for that full, visible unity among those born again through baptism. He founded one Church and entrusted His entire flock to Peter.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

The Church does not teach that one would remain in an active state of mortal sin by joining the Orthodox Church. In the 1970’s Roman Catholics could fulfill their Sunday Obligations at Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies. Inter-communion didn’t really happen much but could (and did in limited circumstances) with the approval of both parties respective bishop/metropolitan. The Orthodox have valid sacraments, including confession. If one does not have an active desire to break with Rome, but feels called to Orthodoxy out of necessity for their spiritual well being, then even “if” this is a sin, they can simply confess it and be absolved and go on embracing the Orthodox faith in full. Schism is an act, not a state of being. The act of separating could be a sin (if all the conditions of a mortal sin apply-knowledge, intent, will, etc). But once confessed, the penalty is no longer present. It’s like adultery. It’s a series of acts, not a never ending state. Any time a married man commits the conjugal act with someone other than his spouse he commits the sin of adultery. For divorced and remarried, if they are living together this state (while certainly a near occasion of sin and could give scandal to those who know of their situation) is not in itself sinful. But every time they act on it is when sins occur. I feel like I am rambling. Please tell me if I am not making sense and I will try to articulate better.

 

[Genesis315]

Schism is a sin and as defined in the Catechism and Canon Law would apply to someone who formally joined one of the EO Churches. You can’t confess a sin and be validly absolved without the firm purpose of amendment. And there can be continuing sin as long as the will remains upon the object of the sin, in this case schism. You’re still in the state of the sin of schism as long as you will to remain in that state. It is a continuous deed, no different than other sins against faith or charity that can be continuous without repentance and amendment, like an ongoing refusal to forgive one’s neighbor, etc.

Again, there may be mitigating factors that reduce one’s culpability (like being born and raised in an EO Church, etc.).

The fact that in certain cases Catholics can partake of their sacraments without intending to join one of their separated Churches does not take away from the fact that one can also commit and remain in schism. If there were no schism, there would be no need for ecumenism whose whole point is to resolve it. The EO Churches are not one with us–both sides acknowledge this and put in a lot of work towards true unity. We should pray that they be one flock with us in perfect peace and communion, rather than pretend we already are.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

I don’t disagree with that but I must say that it is not a universally held belief that it is a mortal sin to become Orthodox. Eastern Catholic Churches do not teach this. I have been told second hand from a priest who teaches at the Byzantine Seminary (Sts Cyril and Methodius) that it is not a sin to become Orthodox. For some people, it is necessary for their spiritual life. Inter communion happens on a more regular basis between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. So while I appreciate Rome holding true to its convictions, this simply does not apply to Eastern Catholics. But the East and West hold very different understandings on sin. Eastern Catholics don’t really dig legalism and don’t get too involved with that noise.

 

[Genesis315]

Again, our common tradition has always held schism to be real and to be a real sin. If anything, the East traditionally has taken it even more seriously (so much so re-baptism was often been promoted there, while the West opposed it).

That some priest says otherwise that you heard second hand (which may not be the whole story) is irrelevant. If the schism didn’t matter, we wouldn’t even have Eastern Catholics.

If some Eastern Catholics don’t treat such issues seriously, the separated EO Churches certainly do. As I mentioned, they have their own schisms right now denying each other communion over legalistic jurisdictional squabbles in Ukraine and elsewhere. Such schisms pop up often among them. Sometimes they won’t even agree to be in the same room with one another (some have boycotted ecumenical talks because another EO Church represetnative was there; many boycotted their own recent putative pan-Orthodox synod in Crete over similar issues). The Roman primacy is at least an issue of substance.

Also, it should be noted, the modern Eastern descriptions and approach toward sin are a more recent development (not saying it’s heterodox in substance). At the time of the Holy Unia and for a long time afterword, East and West–including the separated East–spoke of sin (including original and mortal sin) in the same language with the same understanding (happy to provide some examples if you’d like).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t disagree with that but I must say that it is not a universally held belief that it is a mortal sin to become Orthodox.

It isn’t universally held belief that Christ was God. What significance does that have?

Church Law is clear. Holy Spirit that guides the Church has spoken.

But the East and West hold very different understandings on sin. Eastern Catholics don’t really dig legalism and don’t get too involved with that noise.

Perhaps some, but where I am from, Eastern Catholics perfectly understand reality of Schism. This isn’t West vs East… this is simply Orthodoxy vs Catholicism and even in that scenario, Orthodoxy also holds that conversion to Catholicism is an act of Schism.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

I would be interested in reading anything you’re willing to share. I find myself caught between Orthodoxy and Catholicism at present and find Eastern Catholicism to be a happy medium. And I know Orthodoxy has its host of problems to rival that of Rome. I’m not trying to paint a picture of EO as an unblemished utopia. They are and have been a real mess since the schism.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m sorry for double posting… I wanted to edit bottom post but I edited the above one. Sorry for confusion.

Edit: Nevermind. Site showed me that I double posted but apparently I did not. Interesting.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Church does not teach that one would remain in an active state of mortal sin by joining the Orthodox Church.

If one leaves Catholic Church for any other denomination, he commits Schism- a mortal sin. That is a mortal sin even according to Apostle Paul. Canon Law defines Schism as the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Leaving Catholicism fulfills both of those, so that’s where Church teaches this.

Fulfilling Sunday Obligation did not mean they could commune. Perhaps this was done out of necessary pastoral needs of people, but it no longer applies.

If one does not have an active desire to break with Rome, but feels called to Orthodoxy out of necessity for their spiritual well being, then even “if” this is a sin, they can simply confess it and be absolved and go on embracing the Orthodox faith in full.

Sins are evil, they are very significant and Schism is a mortal sin. One can “simply confess” murder. Should one murder if they believe it helps them? Also we can never use sin for “spiritual well-being”. Sin destroys spiritual well-being.

The act of separating could be a sin (if all the conditions of a mortal sin apply-knowledge, intent, will, etc). But once confessed, the penalty is no longer present.

We need to fix things we have broken with sin. For example if I steal million dollars and then I confess, can I now freely without sin use million dollars to buy myself a car? I doubt that. Also, which Orthodox Priest would absolve you of sin of Schisming from Rome? They would just tell you it isn’t sin. Priests are forbidden to absolve from something that they know is not a sin.

Please tell me if I am not making sense and I will try to articulate better.

I perfectly understand your point, but it’s not correct. You seem to have serious misconceptions about Sin, Schism and Confession.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

I would give my reasons for having almost become Orthodox and why I am more sympathetic to their churches than the average Roman Catholic, but with a profile I had a couple years ago, when I tried sharing this experience my account was banned (as it had criticisms of the novus ordo church). I don’t want to get myself in trouble with the mods again as I am enjoying being active on these forums once again. But suffice it to say, many who leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy do so out of spiritual necessity. The SSPX (another hot button issue on these forums) make a solid point for why the Sunday obligation doesn’t necessarily apply to parishes that mess with the Mass to the point that it becomes harmful to the faith of the person attending. There have been real examples of this in my area where I live that made it to where I can not, in faith, step foot in a novus ordo church again. I don’t make the claim (and didn’t then) that they are invalid. But for my own spiritual well being, I simply cannot attend those communities anymore. The TLM provided refuge for awhile but they have a host of other problems that are equally harmful to one’s spiritual life. My only option (to my knowledge at the time) was an Antiochian Orthodox Church near me. I went to a study, became friends with the priest and dialogued with him via email for awhile. I was about to become a catechumen when I discovered we had an Eastern Catholic Church 2 hours north of us. We have practical reasons where becoming Orthodox would be spiritually beneficial to us. But as I am not 100% convinced of Orthodoxy’s claims, I did the prudent thing and backed off. I am content enough with the Byzantine Church we are in and hope our family can move closer to the parish to have regular involvement throughout the week (rather than just infrequent Sunday attendance). So that’s the super basic gist of it without getting into details that will get my account suspended or banned. I’m not trying to attack anyone or anything. I just wanted to give some perspective, based on my personal experience.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The SSPX (another hot button issue on these forums) make a solid point for why the Sunday obligation doesn’t necessarily apply to parishes that mess with the Mass to the point that it becomes harmful to the faith of the person attending.

I agree… but there are several ways to deal with it. We are the living temples of Holy Spirit. If there is Priest who abuses Mass, then it’s always a good idea to try and talk to him about it or send a letter to Bishop or even above. Point is, usually this can be solved if we want to solve it. It’s harder to light a candle than curse the dark. We are meant to be parts of the Church that also help Her grow. If we attend Mass, partake from Sacraments of the Church but we do not do anything to help the Church (in our own unique subjectively special way), then we have no right to be upset about it.

I would rather go to Catholic Church which has abuses than Sedevacantist Church which doesn’t. They both have valid Sacraments but unity of the Church means much to me.

But as I am not 100% convinced of Orthodoxy’s claims, I did the prudent thing and backed off. I am content enough with the Byzantine Church we are in and hope our family can move closer to the parish to have regular involvement throughout the week (rather than just infrequent Sunday attendance).

I see. It is better to make sure. Before I attended Catholic Confession and received our Lord, I made sure that what I believed Catholic Church was True Church. I was quite convinced that Protestants are right at first… then I almost became Orthodox. But I read a lot about Church history, theology and other things from all sources and I was convinced to become Catholic (or stay Catholic at the time, but I knew so little about faith I didnt consider myself Catholic until I was convinced Catholicism is what I believed in).

So that’s the super basic gist of it without getting into details that will get my account suspended or banned. I’m not trying to attack anyone or anything. I just wanted to give some perspective, based on my personal experience.

It’s sad and wrong that this would be ban-able offense. I don’t get why would expressing one’s story be wrong… oh well.

I also attended Eastern Catholic Church during my start at university. I kept attending almost exclusively Eastern Catholic Church and it taught me respect for my own tradition of Latin Rite. I thought I would change to Eastern Catholicism but eventually I found out that for now, I belong to Latin Church. What I love is diversity- we have Byzantine Catholics, Maronites, Eastern Churches in India etc etc… it is beautiful. And even in the West- we have ordinariate for former Anglicans which also has beautiful Mass and Rite. It is truly a blessing to be Catholic.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

This is one of Catholicism’s strengths over the Orthodox. The Catholic Church alone has the full gambit of western, eastern and oriental churches. The Eastern Orthodox really only comprises of the Byzantine Rite. The Oriental Orthodox and the Churches of the East (like Assyrians-not really sure what they call their communion) are all out of communion with each other. The Orthodox claim, despite being out of sacramental communion, that all these communities are orthodox and share the same basic faith (which still unites them in that sense). The Catholic claim is stronger as we have a more tangible and visible unity. But I’m sympathetic to the Orthodox still. Visible unity is important but I just can’t bring myself to believe it’s absolutely essential. It seems self refuting to say that one “must” be Catholic in order to be saved and at the same time acknowledge that the Orthodox have valid sacraments and lead their parishioners to Heaven.

 

[Genesis315]

I get it–I love the Eastern Catholics and the beauty and sanctity with which they enrich the Church and the Eastern schism is one that pains all I think. I think the ECs have a special role to play in fostering unity, as JPII noted of them thriving alongside Latin Catholics: “The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.” (Ecclesia in America 17). But for Catholics of all stripes who deeply desire unity, the temptation is always there to downplay real separations (something Vatican II called a false “irenicism”). We also shouldn’t create new points of division unnecessarily!

As for conceptions of sin, here is a link with some posts with EO primary sources on original sin (the thread was about the modern–and new–EO opposition to the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception by virtue of their view of original sin). See posts 3,4, and 6 here:

Catholic vs Orthodox Immaculate conception? Why does it matter who is right? - #3 by Genesis315

And some EO sources on mortal sin, see this post (see post 44):
Orthodoxy & Mortal Sin - #44 by Genesis315

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

Thank you for sharing those resources. I will read through them after work!

I fear I’ve derailed my own thread a little bit. For any of the posters here, have any of you encountered a solid rebuttal to Ubi Petrus on youtube? It would be too exhausting for everyone to try and go to each of his videos and do a point by point rebuttal (it would likely take months). But as a general overview? That is what I was essentially looking for here. I watched his video criticizing Erick Ybarra’s debate with someone and another video and his arguments seem fool proof (though I couldn’t possibly begin to rebut them since this is all new territory for me).

 

[Margaret_Ann]

SlavaIsusuChristu:

The SSPX (another hot button issue on these forums) make a solid point for why the Sunday obligation doesn’t necessarily apply to parishes that mess with the Mass to the point that it becomes harmful to the faith of the person attending.

I agree… but there are several ways to deal with it. We are the living temples of Holy Spirit. If there is Priest who abuses Mass, then it’s always a good idea to try and talk to him about it or send a letter to Bishop or even above. Point is, usually this can be solved if we want to solve it. It’s harder to light a candle than curse the dark. We are meant to be parts of the Church that also help Her grow. If we attend Mass, partake from Sacraments of the Church but we do not do anything to help the Church (in our own unique subjectively special way), then we have no right to be upset about it.

I would rather go to Catholic Church which has abuses than Sedevacantist Church which doesn’t. They both have valid Sacraments but unity of the Church means much to me.

Nice post but just to clarify: The SSPX is not sedevacantist.

 

[JSRG]

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?

You mention “videos” (plural) but there’s only one video on his channel… unless you’re also including how a few other Orthodox youtube channels have had podcasts or whatever with him also on it. But if you’re looking for direct responses, you probably won’t get too much; as noted he only has one actual video, which doesn’t have that many views (about 7,000), and normally direct rebuttals are done for videos that get a lot more attention than that. Furthermore, the whole thing is mostly a response to a video by a Catholic named Erick Ybarra, making others have less of a dog in the fight; it’s also over 2 hours long and thus would take a really long time to fully respond to (heck, it means someone would have to spend over 2 hours just watching the thing before they even start a response). The only people I can think of who might make a direct rebuttal would be Erick Ybarra (as it’s a response to him) or Trent Horn who does do some video rebuttals (some extremely long). I don’t know how interested either would be but you could try suggesting it to them if you want.

If you’re looking for more just general arguments about Orthodoxy from a Catholic perspective, this is far outside my area of expertise so I can’t really say too much on the subject myself, but if you’re looking for general arguments for Catholicism over Orthodoxy, I know Dave Armstrong has some stuff here, and there’s some scattered stuff on the Catholic Answers website–there used to be a more convenient index page for the pages on Orthodoxy but I think it got lost when they last restructured the site. This site also has some stuff (some of the links no longer work but hey, that’s what The Wayback Machine is for), though it’s not specifically aimed at Orthodoxy.

 

[ziapueblo]

Has anyone seen the videos of Ubi Petrus on youtube?

As an Orthodox (former Byzantine Catholic via Roman Catholicism) I do not mind Ubi Petrus, I often read his blog. Jay Dyer is on fire for Orthodoxy but he is a hot head lol! I know that Ubi Petrus has tried to debate Erick Ybarra and they see to have a feud with one another. I used to watch Reason and Theology but have been disappointed with their programing the past few months.

I find myself caught between Orthodoxy and Catholicism at present and find Eastern Catholicism to be a happy medium.

I was in the same boat and eventually came to Orthodoxy.

ZP

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I haven’t heard of “Ubi Petrus” and don’t know about the person behind the name.

However, as of late, many Western converts to Orthodoxy seem to hold a very gnostic view of the Eastern Orthodox faith as some type of impenetrable fortress of Christianity that is immune from influence from the outside world, heresies, modernism, etc.

But a quick view of a few other popular Orthodox youtube channels easily shows that the Orthodox are just as susceptible to confusion and errors as any other institution run by fallible humans.

The fact is, that in the West, the Orthodox are not very well known. They are a tiny percentage of the population. The wider culture and media has little to no interest or knowledge of Orthodoxy. Thus, it kind of just flies under the radar and isn’t a massive target like the Catholic Church.

They can say all they want about the failures of the Catholic Church, but at least we’ve been bold in reaching out to the world, as misguided as some of those efforts may have been. When is the last time your drove past an Orthodox hospital or school in America? They’re few and far between, and have a long way to go in promoting outward signs of charity. They often seem more content to remain hidden under a false notion of mysticism.

Many Orthodox converts today say the Catholic Church is weak, but they don’t have a much better track record. Let’s be honest, it seems that any culture or country where Orthodoxy took deep root eventually became socialist or communist failures.

The world listens when the Pope speaks, no matter who he is. The same can’t be said whenever an Orthodox prelate speaks.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

What finally convinced you of Orthodox vs Catholicism? I find that every time I see a convincing argument by one side, I read something that seems to soundly refute it by the other. I can’t discern my way through this, it’s all such a mess.