Erick Ybarra's NEW Papacy book

00:01:05 - Introduction
00:03:29 - Original Content?
00:04:30 - What didn't make the final cut?
00:15:17 - Four Claims that favor the papacy
00:24:25 - Summary
00:26:59 - How much evidence is enough?
00:34:45 - Eastern vs. Western Ecclesiology
00:42:10 - Did the East EVER recognize the papacy?
00:51:56 - The Evidence for the Papacy is Substantial
00:55:06 - Book's Intended Audience = Orthodox and Catholics
01:02:55 - Are Catholics "making it up" as they go along?
01:06:30 - The Orthodox are in discontinuity
01:09:10 - The Schism was and is unjustified
01:17:59 - Main Takeaways

Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.

[davidkline]

About 20% through Erick's book and the clarity with which he approaches the papacy question is refreshing. Really enjoying it!

[TheEdzy]

Great show. Will look into buying the book.

[matthewbroderick]

Love these Catholic Guys! Great interview! Thank you! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[lionheart]

ive read 85% of the book within a month. Please Erick create a second edition with what you cut out.

[shlamallama]

Question for Erick: TLDR I have reasoned myself from scripture into an ecclesiastical view that no apostolic Church today holds and I don't know how to get out of it.

Erick: I just finished reading in depth your chapter on the Papacy in scripture. In it you quote Dr. Craig Keener who says that the disciplinary power of the keys are related to the doctrinal power in this way: that Peter is a porter that gatekeeps the messianic community on the basis of one's acceptance of Peter's halakha. Keener says that this is how the Qumran community worked, and since that is the stipulative definition for binding and loosing at the time of Matthew's Gospel, Peter would be doing the same thing according to the author. This has been a very helpful way for me to think about binding and loosing, so I want to thank you for including this quote.

I have a question about binding and loosing: What do you think the consequence of Peter's binding and loosing of doctrinal judgments with God's authority means for Petrine infallibility? If these doctrinal pronouncements are given with God's backing, are they necessarily without error? If that is the case, then it seems both Peter but also each of the Apostles are infallible as per Matthew 18, since they also bind and loose with heaven's backing and you say they also have the keys.

A response may be to say that the Apostles have the keys mediately through Peter, however I struggle to find anyway the Gospel of Matthew delineates the relationship between Peter's halakhic authority and that of the rest of the Apostles. I am not sure how one would argue from the text of the Gospel of Matthew that the keys come to the Apostles through Peter, I just see no basis for that. Furthermore Jesus gives the keys to the apostles in Matthew 18 directly, not through Peter, and I think it is reading too much into the text to say that they are given as a part of a necessary union with Peter, as even though Peter is included among the Apostles in Matthew 18, he is not singled out specifically in this passage as necessary.

If we take the view that binding and loosing with God's authority necessitates infallibility, then that would mean that the Apostles, and by analogy, each individual bishop has a charism of infallibility, and that has to be wrong, otherwise all of the apostolic churches from the very beginning would be in error about the prerogatives of the bishop.

However, the text seems to me to teach episcopal infallibility for the following reasons:

I realize you may take the view that binding and loosing with God's authority does not necessitate infallibility. My problem with that is there needs to be another way in which these pronouncements are binding in heaven besides being inerrant. I am not aware of such another way. However, if there is another way, then this would seem to cut against those Catholic apologists who use Matthew 16:19 as a text that teaches papal infallibility, like Suan does, and many other Catholics. That would harmonize well with historical arguments for Papal infallibility, because Luke 22 is used for that instead of Matthew 16, and the fathers view Matthew 16:19 as the forgiveness of sins.

But the original meaning of Matthew 16 and 18 seem to teach petrine and apostolic infallibility, as modern protestant scholars who have a greater knowledge of the Jewish culture of Jesus than the fathers did (seemingly to me, perhaps I am wrong) say that it refers to Peter's halakha. Davies and Allison, whom Suan quotes a lot, argue that even though the forgiveness of sins has some argument for it, halakhic pronouncements have better evidence and including both powers in the power of the keys would be to over weigh the term "binding and loosing."

Even if we do load in forgiveness of sins with doctrinal pronouncements, that still seems to get us to apostolic infallibility, and if Peter's infallibility is passed down to the Bishop of Rome, than likewise it is reasonable to think that infallibility passes down through the apostles to the bishops of local churches.

Where do I go wrong?

Thanks Erick for your work, and God bless you. Sorry for the long text.

[CherubimCreations]

Will there be an audiobook version? Check out East2West Theology ☦️💘

[YovanypadillaJr]

Does Erick Ybarra book also talk the Eliakim argument on how it's been interpreted in the church?

[SheepDog]

Does Erick go over in any depth the "scholarly concensus" that the episcopate was a development?

[brendanryan]

just finished lord norwich's ...the popes....ē davvero cosi divertante....tu potrā in ospidale