The History of the Papacy (w/ Erick Ybarra)

In this episode, I'm joined by one of my favourite people to talk to Erick Ybarra. Erick is a former Reformed Baptist who became Anglican in his search for an authoritative, apostolic Church but didn't stop there. After carefully examining Catholic vs. Orthodox claims Erick eventually became Catholic – although continued his long and exhaustive search of Scriptures and Church History to be able to fully defend his decision. Erick's search, and his extensive research into the papacy, is recorded in his new book The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox available here:

Erick joins us this week to unpack the history of the papacy from Scripture and throughout Church history; tackling subjects like development of the papacy, papal infallibility, objections to Catholic claims, and more.

Erick shared his conversion story on this podcast on Episode 144: Where is the True Church?

To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.

Please consider financially supporting this show!

Thank you to those already supporting the show!

[elijahyasi]

When it comes to the papacy, none do it better than Erick.

[kianoghuz]

Beautiful Chieti Document and 'Bishop of Rome' document. Beautiful Donation of Constantine

[simplydanny]

I could listen to Erick all day, wealth of knowledge. Also sound advice, not afraid of opposition.

[catholictabletalkpodcast]

First time to your channel. Great job man! Lets get together and promote both of our podcasts.

[BensWorkshop]

Many thanks. Another expensive book on my wish list...

[tonyl]

You got the people I like to listen to. Gonna binge on your channel for awhile. :)

[PInkW]

St Peter • janitor of heaven • pray for us

[dodavega]

I would love to see a discussion between him and Gavin

[jonathansmith]

Why can’t I watch this video for any more than 5 minutes without there being an advertisement interrupting?

[jamesernest]

What does Eric Ybarra think of the Arabic canons, genuine, pseudo Nicene or what status does he confer upon them?

[dodavega]

I listened a long time and heard a lot of nice words without any substantiation

[johnnyd]

History of Papacy is history of desire for power, so typical for fallen human nature... yet.. to safeguard themselves, heretical Popes imposed "infallibility" on themselves. I would like to hear from Latins as to how come St. Peter was fallible, but his alleged successors aren't.?

[manuelpompa-ue]

somore info, peter said he was "just another elder" in the church. he was not even the head of the church in jerusalem (james was). there is no clear evidence he was ever in rome. he was a great apostle, but the "rock" of the church was part of the bedrock. Jesus said Himself, He is the head of the church. the popes are pretenders.

[vivekapihl]

"Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant."

I would say Peter did start the parish in Rome. And in Antioch and in many places. But he did not stay there to be a person to be looked at as something elevated. He stayed in the work, among the hard and dirty work.
He and Paul ordained the ministers and elders, sent preachers and stayed themselves on the field.

The problem with later popes is that they make themselves church emperor, they don't stay on the field. The Great leaders are leading the troops to the battle field, not watching the battle from the tower.

And I don't think Peter would deny other apostles to have say to things.
Synodality is the key to true papacy.

[manuelpompa-ue]

let's see, the history of the papacy... who was supposed peter's successor? was peter ever in rome? are the bishops of rome peter's successors (no bishop of rome until early 3rd century)? bishops of rome had no authority over other bishops. 1st "real" pope gregory 1 in the 6th century. what a roman catholic mess!

[Justas]

Problems with a papacy:
1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church.

2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church.

3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

 
4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80, 221-222). –Catholic scholar.
 
 
5- Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

6-no bishop in the 1st century claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church.