[Debate] Papacy Debate: Erick Ybarra vs. Jay Dyer
[Debate] Review of “Papacy Debate: Erick Ybarra vs. Jay Dyer”
[Debate] Are Ecumenical Councils to be Identified by the Reception?: Erick Ybarra vs. Craig Truglia
[Debate] Who Started the East/West Schism? Erick Ybarra vs. Craig Truglia
[Interview] The Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy w/ Athanasius Contra Mundum (Ryan Grant)
[Interview] Men with Chests : Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Doctrines
[Interview] Allan Ruhl: Papacy in Early Christianity
[Interview] Allan Ruhl: Papacy from 4th to 8th Centuries
[Interview] Matt Fradd – Pints with Aquinas: Eastern Orthodoxy
[Interview] Sensus Fidelium: Eastern Orthodoxy
[Round Table] Responding to Objections from the Eastern Orthodox
[Dialogue] Papal Primacy w/ Deacon Joseph Suaiden on Eastern Orthodox Apologetics Channel
[Interview] HolyFatherTV: Eastern Orthodoxy
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Virgin Most Powerful: The Filioque
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Virgin Most Powerful: What Happened to Vigilius?
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Sources of Papal Infallibility
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Doctrinal Development
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Chalcedon and its Aftermath
[Interview] Gary Michuta – Leo and the Council of Chalcedon
[Interview] Reccomended Books on the Papacy
[Round Table] The Papacy and Oriental Orthodoxy
[Round Table] Intellectual Convervatism: Defense of the Papacy
[Round Table] Old Believers Schism in Russia
[Interview] Dr. Ed Siecienski: Introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy
[Interview] Dr. Ed Siecienski: Filioque/Papacy
[Interview] Dr. Ed. Siecienski: Azymes, Beards, and Purgatory
[Interview] Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck: His Broken Body
[Interview] Dr. James Likoudis: The Papacy and the Orthodox
[Interview] Marks of the True Church (Sensus Fidelium)
Erick Ybarra 
My journey is a lot like yours. Fight the good fight, brother.
Your interpretations are way off with Father Treco and Bishop Lopes and how you see these documents.
Mr. Madaras,
Thank you for your comment. Could you expand what your mean to say?
Thank you.
Hello Erick! Thank you so much for all your videos and blog posts, the sources you have provide have shown anything but our Catholic faith is wholly wrong. I have a request, I and I’m sure a good number of others would love (if not need) to read or listen to your thoughts on Palamite theology and if it can be reconciled with Thomism. This is a question I struggle with and anything you could provide would be of great help! Thank you!
Your blog is very interesting and your articles about papal supremacy in the first millennium of the Church are one of the best I have ever read. I am a sedevacantist and I would like to know what do you think about this article written by an ex-sede now an Eastern Orthodox apologist. Is his argument that Rome is an integral component of the Papacy correct? I also would like to hear your opinion about sedevacantism in general. https://www.thesedevacantistdelusion.com/rome
I am deeply sorry I have not gotten to this yet. Lord willing, I will have time this week. God bless!
No problem and thank you for answering. God bless you too!
Ivan
Hi Erick, did you have an opportunity to take a look at this book (The Sedevacantist Delusion)? I think it brings forth some interesting points specifically in relation to the Apostolic See, especially in light of your response to Mark Bonocore on the podcast the other day.
Greetings. I am part of a FB group in which you are also a member, the Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Discussion group (POCD) and I am always interested in your replies.
For me, I am Kenneth Smith and I am a former Baptist minister converted to the Roman Catholic faith since 1990. I have a seminary degree, and thus a theological education, but as a Baptist. As a Baptist my connection to the Apostolic world, and thus its continuity, was in the book I held, which ironically was canonized by the very institution which my former creed said had gotten everything wrong. Since my conversion I value very highly those churches which existed in the Apostolic era and which have continued as they were then, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all those with valid Orders from the Apostolic era. However, because I give the Eastern Orthodox this credence, I am susceptible to their very pointed criticism of the Roman Catholic faith, especially the validity of her orders. Now, I am familiar with Catholic traditionalists’ similar criticisms, but those are based on the Thomist criteria of what makes a sacrament valid. I am satisfied with the answer provided by the chief traditionalist group, the SSPX, that despite the changes subsequent to the Second Vatican council, Catholic Orders remain valid. However, as you know, the Orthodox are not so kind.
And this has been quite a revelation to me, and the occasion for which I write to you on your blog site. If possible could you address this criticism of the validity of Catholic orders from the Orthodox perspective. From what I have been able to glean from discussions, Catholic holy orders have been invalid since the schism and for that reason: the Catholic world left the integrity of the Catholic faith by daring to introduce a change which the east did not share and did not participate. Or similar. And that because the Bishop of Rome left the greater body of Catholic fellowship with the other Patriarchs that terminated further validity of Catholic orders, and consequently the validity of all Catholic sacraments. Baptism is not valid; neither is the Holy Eucharist. This is quite upsetting to me, as it seems to be a fantastic claim that I normally associate with my former confreres in the Baptist world. Could you clarify their criticism?
For instance, the Catholic Church maintains valid orders by first having received them from Christ, and thereafter by maintaining proper matter, form, and intent when consecrating or effecting a sacrament. For the Orthodox however, this stipulation is irrelevant in the face of the lack of unity which Rome failed to maintain with the East. That I cannot understand, ,and it vexes me because they are indeed an Apostolic Church.
Your consideration on this would be greatly appreciated.
Cordially,
Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith,
As far as I know, the “Orthodox Church” does not have a single view on the validity, nor efficacy, of Catholic sacraments. For example, one of the English world’s most referred to spokesmen for the Orthodox Church vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and in his recent keynote lecture for the International Orthodox Theological Association on Jan 11th, 2019, he speaks to this very question of the Orthodox viewpoint of the validity of sacraments outside the “Eastern Orthodox Church”. I have here a link which which will take you directly to minute 39:38 where he will begin to speak at minute 40 specifically on this question. You should listen until minute 43 (about 3 minutes total). You will want to click here below:
In addition to Metropolitan Kallistos, there is another widely referred to spokesman for Eastern Orthodoxy from the Moscow Patriarchate, and he is Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamps. He answered some interview questions back in 2009 for the Vertograd Orthodox Journal wherein he states very clearly that Roman Catholic sacraments are valid. The reference to this can be found at the link here below (although you might want to search for some original reporting just for assurance):
https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/
Historically speaking, this question has also not been perfectly monolithic. For example, 400 years after the popular date of the schism (1054), when the Latins and Greeks gathered together for the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the idea at the commencement of the Council was that both side represented the Church “in some sense”, and , upon reconciliation (all Greek/Rus representatives signed the decrees, save Mark of Ephesus), no side rebaptized or re-ordained the other. This would show they implicitly recognized each others sacraments. Again, at least in some sense.
Also, taking this to the 1600s-1700s, there was intercommunion between the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If you could get a hold of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s article entitled “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?” in the journal Studies in Church History (Vol 9, March 2016, pg. 256-276), he will detail some of this history.
I have also written myself an extensive article on the Patristic understanding of the validity of baptism, even that which is performed by heretics here below:
https://erickybarra.org/2018/06/08/the-apostolic-and-patristic-tradition-on-baptism-by-heretics/
Now, having said all of this, there are several groupings in the Orthodox Church, not to mention the radical Orthodox schismatic groups (non-canonical groups), who do not accept any of the Catholic sacraments as valid or efficacious. This would obviously be a contradiction to the Patristic consensus on the question.
Perhaps your question is a bit more specific?
Yes, a bit more specific. In lieu of the general disregard that is shown for Thomas Aquinas’ reasoning, I think I can safely assume that his reasoning for the validity of a sacrament which I noted above is dismissed by the Orthodox as invalid because it is from him and he is a scholastic. So I would like to understand how a sacrament is valid to the Orthodox — how do they know their sacraments are valid, and by contrast are able to state matter of factly, at least some of them, that Catholic sacraments are not, therefore, valid. and thus not sacraments at all. So there must be a theological rationale by which they are understand sacraments to be valid, just as in Roman Catholicism. And because of this, some say Catholic sacraments are valid, and the more ardent among them state that they are not, and they disagree with Bishop Kalistos.
Thanks for the links above. I will listen to them immediately.
Kenneth
Hello! Been enjoying the Reason and Theology show for some time now (it keeps me company as the chef of the house.) I enjoy the topics you guys discuss and appreciate your opinion on things. I too am a convert (9 years ?) to Catholicism, from Evangelicalism. The Papacy has been an interest of mine for some time so that’s how I landed on the Papal Primacy page over on Facebook. I mostly just lurk there, and I don’t get a lot of time presently to do historical research on my own terms. Anyway, se you around! If you get bored or get the notion, come check out my little corner of cyberspace (http://nicholasgulda.com/) Shameless plug aside, I don’t get to post too much (I aim for twice a month) but hope to with more frequency at a future date. Peace, Nick
Sorry for taking so long to get to my messages here. Thanks for popping in!
I’m sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question. I tried to find another means of contacting you but it’s a bit late and this is the best I could do. I recently heard YouTube page with Jay on the 6 Nicene and Cannon. I wanted to get your opinion on an article I found publish in the American ecclesiastical review.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2fOQQgiVCuRTU00bE5BOVk4eVU/view?usp=drivesdk
I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen this article before. But I found that it was very relevance to the discussion you were having. This article actually how to keep me from becoming Eastern Orthodox a while back.
Hi sir,
Yes, I’m aware of that interpretation. Its a win win , really. I think my interpretation fits with Catholicism , ad so does that one.
Dear Erick,
Thank you for your work in promoting the Catholic faith and for respectfully dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy’s objections to Rome.
I converted to the Catholic faith in 1994 and very quickly became disillusioned with the Novus Ordo. Since 1999, I have worked for the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass in my area. We now have a weekly TLM with an onsite priest who offers this Mass with great reverence. So, I have much for which to be thankful.
Working for the restoration of the TLM did not come without pain and suffering along the way. It seemed like suffering increased as a result of my activity in support of the TLM.
Some of the suffering resulted from my own stupidity. Some of it came from the clergy. Most of it originated from my perpetual inner conflict regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. You may wonder why this is so.
When I was a child, I experienced resplendent Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgies which made a deep impression on me. My parents almost converted to Russian Orthodoxy in the 1970s but finally decided against it. Nonetheless, the impression was made. I experienced the most sublime beauty in these liturgies. This attraction resurfaced years later.
My father converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in 2008 and died in that faith. In 2017, my dear cousin, converted to EO as well. These events have reinforced my tendency to consider EO as an option, especially during the pontificate of Francis. The revelations of Archbishop Viganò revealed a papacy mired in duplicity and corruption hence increasing my tendency to look Eastward.
Given your encyclopedic knowledge of the Fathers, could you address the issues that are raised by the following article? It seems to me that the issues raised, if true, reveal how deep are the differences between East an West. However, I suspect that the way in which the West is depicted is not entirely on target.
Thank you!
Sincerely in Christ,
Erick Wittemann
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/the-river-of-fire-kalomiros/
Hey Erick, I’m an agnostic who is currently trying to make sense of things, and your appearance in videos on YouTube discussing theology have been really helpful in my understanding of the East-West Schism, as well as the Catholic view on many other nuanced theological topics. I really admire your humble disposition, even in the face of hostile debate opponents, and the breadth and depth of your knowledge on these matters.
Perhaps one day I will be writing to you as a confirmed Catholic. At this point, I feel like that is a very real possibility.
Hi Anonymous,
Thank you so much for the kind words. I do really appreciate that. Thank you for tuning in, as well.
Hi there!! Greetings from Spain brother. I am just a protestant who has been in seminnary for couple years, long a time ago, and to me theology and church history has become a hobbie. I dont know if this is good. Anyways, just willing to say, you seem a guy who is almost non biased and that you do a great job in the art of argumentation.
Now, let me ask you for something, I bet a lot of ppl want of you. I would like to see a recommanded reading list of books by you on different topics. I think its something we all would appreciate.
Feliz año nuevo!
Yes, I’m working on this. I think I’ll have time this weekend
Hey Erick
Craig Truglia is doing a series on Augustine’s understanding of the Filioque in his de Trinitate. I know you’ve already written an article where you go through some excerpts and quotes of his, but do you reckon directly engaging Craig’s material would be fruitful?
In the crucified, risen and ascended Christ,
John
Hi Erick..I left a copy of my pamphlet on the Anglican Use on your Facebook page.Did you find it helpful.
You were a bit generous with Kallistos?
I’ve only recently found your page. Thank you for this amazing resource.
While I won’t support you with PayPal, Twitter, or YouTube — I refuse to give traffic to those who would rather see Catholics dead than prosper — I will pray for your work and share your website with as many people as I can.
If you have another mechanism to accept donations other than PayPal, pls email me privately.
Hi Erick,
Any update on your book? I’m reading Siecienski’s book now, and it’s amazing, but I’d love to read a book from a Catholic perspective as well.
The publishing process is longer than I thought. THe book is done. It is all a matter of marketing/editing. My patience may run out soon, and I may self publish. In the mean time, I’m working on a short 50 page primer on the filioque that should take far much faster to edit/publish
Well if you need a reviewer, feel free to send the manuscript my way. I’m even willing to pay US dollars for your trouble. 😉