The Logic of Papal Infallibility - Ben Bollinger & Erick Ybarra

What is the logical rationale of Papal Infallibility? Is it just a scheme to augment the worship of 1 single man? Is there any evidence for it in the historical sources that all Christians recognize? Join Ybarra & Bollinger as they dig into history and reason to discuss the answers to these questions.

Ben Bollinger's Ancient Insights

Ben Bollinger's Substack

Ben Bollinger on Instagram

Ben Bollinger on FB

Classical Christian Thought on Patreon

Classical Christian Thought on Locals

PayPal (Erick Ybarra)

Classical Christian Thought Home Website

Erick Ybarra's Audio/Video/Article Resource Directory

The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox

E-Book The Origin of the Papacy: The Patristic Logic

The Just Shall Live by Faith

The Filioque

Melchizedek and the Last Supper

The Church Fathers on Rebaptism

Erick Ybarra on Facebook

Erick Ybarra on Instagram

Erick Ybarra on Twitter

[benjaminjohn]

Thanks for having me on, it was a great discussion!

[nicholasvogt]

This has to be hands down the best polemicist YouTube channel. I mean that in a good way. Please try to find a date to do another round table episode! Love you channel Erick

[masterchief]

Great show! Let me just give a comment here about Ubi’s “Byzantine flattery” theory in trying to prove that, if the 6th Ecumenical Council used hyperbolic language to describe a perpetual and orthodox Empire concerning the “gates of hell” not prevailing against it, then all language using the Petrine divine promise is automatically honorific as a consequence. If that were true, we would have to concede that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the first “flatterer” in the topic, by using His famous ‘empty’ words in the Gospel to Peter, as in this (bad) Eastern Orthodox claim. There is obviously a better case for them to formulate than that. But we just know it isn’t the case because Christ indeed constituted Peter’s role to be of leadership inside the Apostolic collegiate. So they should try harder to dispute what that leadership means, not to pretend this ecclesiological divine constitution is honorific. For starters, this terrible Ubi’s equivalentism simply just doesn’t logically follow.


Besides, the Council also said that the Emperor was “the keeper of the orthodox faith” or “the foundation of the Churches”. So Ubi’s solution is to say that the Council was being hyperbolic and honorific to the Empire/ to the Emperor just as it was with the Roman See. The words about Rome, therefore, were non-literal and a obsequiousness, a mere flattery. For me, there is really no real surprises here, because the Roman/Byzantine Empire was assumed to be the unitive concrete and material reality in which (and with which) Eastern Orthodoxy was supposed to function, considering that the “imperialization” of the Church is, in other words, co-existential to Eastern Orthodoxy in itself. Nevertheless, I must say all this illogical equivalentism is surprisingly misplaced, since 1) the Emperor didn’t claim to be guarded by Christ in his teaching office (as if he even had one in the first place!), let alone by a divine Petrine promise; 2) the Emperor didn’t claim that the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the rock upon which the Church was built, even if some language related to that could be used, nor he claimed that the Petrine promises referred to the Emperor as a kind of Successor of St Peter. Yet those were EXACTLY the claims of Pope Agatho. What these Eastern Orthodox may choose to pick is usually the inaugural salutation to the Emperor, as the one responsible to convene the Council (in Constantiple, the Imperial capital), but NOT in response of any positive substantive claims of the Emperor, either relating to Christ’s promise, or to Peter’s succession, or to the guardianship from doctrinal error. Agatho, on the contrary, ACTUALLY made the claims. Only a thoroughly ignorant commentator will miss it here.


And St Agatho states that concerning the Apostolic See of Rome not once, not twice. Many times he affirms the same in his letters to the 6th EC: the unblemished state of the Roman church, linking it, as in so many of the dense Patristic testimony, to a divine promise made by Christ Jesus to the Apostle Peter (which is perpetual, and invested in the successors). What does the Council do then? Not only it does not rebuke him or manifests a caveat, but acclaims the pope’s letters as if they were spoken by (and through) Peter’s authority, which is - as one can obviously notice - the very matter of the positive and substantive claim we are talking about in the part of Agatho! How can Ubi Petrus be so deceptive? Therefore, there is no possible similarity between Agatho’s/ Roman See’s and the Emperor’s /Empire’s case for anyone to even come with this unintelligent equivalentism, simply to try to justify the “Byzantine flattery” theory. Even knowing for a fact that Emperors sometimes acted (unfortunately) in a quasi-episcopal capacity during Ecumenical Councils, there is no ecclesiological basis for any role that connects the Empire to the trueness of doctrines of faith and morals, even if the language of orthodoxy sometimes was connected to the role of guardianship that the Empire offered the Church in some salutations. But ‘au contrarie’, any imperial role like that is even definable as a canonical anomaly and in some cases the Church simply conceded to have Emperors acting at all, if not in complex and grievous circumstances. I honestly don’t know how one could have missed the difference between those cases; and, even worse, I don’t know how people can think the Council could have missed to rebuke Agatho’s claim, but there isn’t even a remotely similar claim coming from the Emperor to the Council (to adhere to, supposedly), like Agatho did - and it was received by the Greek bishops with acclamation.



God bless you all!

[pixelprincess]

The difference between Catholic and Protestant apologetics: Catholics argue FOR something while Protestants argue AGAINST something!

[sotem]

This was really incredible gentlemen.
Still working through your book Erick, I think it is really great!
This is a good supplement.

[tonyl]

I don't think apologists talk enough about Timothy and Titus as proof of authoritative successors of the Apostles after apostles die. Maybe more relevant against Protestantism but y'all brought it up.

[kylecityy]

What are your thoughts on the circular argument george Salmon made arguing against papal infalibility?

[lfw]

In early church, untill this day, from all bishops that wrote letters to one another, and all Saints, there was not one that had image of "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" or "Gates of hell will not prevail against her.." that wasnt adressed to succesor of Peter, or Bishop of Rome..
Not even one Bishop recieved letter that said that His church, or Church as a whole has kesy or prommises recieved by Peter unless they are in communion with him.. only when Peter was mentioned this image was mentioned ..

Feel Free To Chek It Out And Prove Me Wrong


Thank you

[jacobstevens]

If documents like the chieti and Alexandria document concede the papacy didn’t act in the first millennium as it does now why the change? Another thing I’d like to bring up is the church didn’t teach in the first 1, 000 years that communion with Rome was necessary for salvation. And if it did there are a lot of saints that are venerated in the Catholic Church who were not in communion with Rome when they died. It just seems more plausible that Romes primacy was contingent on them being orthodox in their teaching and faith than them being the only patriarchal see that would never fall away because of a special promise which was given for sure to Peter. It just doesn’t follow that it also applies to Rome.

[devonmoreau]

Presupposing this logic is accurate, how would you reconcile the following? 1. The Pope has officially declared an incorrect doctrine, i.e. “Mankind has infinite dignity”. 2. Mankind cannot have infinite dignity, he is finite and only God is infinite, and further this contradicts previous teaching.

[matthewhamstein]

Orthodox here didn’t find the Saint Nicephorus bit very convincing because Rome was still Orthodox. All the patriarchs had to agree for a council to be ecumenical

[jacobwoods]

Thoughts on why Catholics are becoming Orthodoxy despite knowing these arguments? I also read several EO in YT comments who become Catholic but it seems the EO are the loudest on YT lol.

[frederickanderson]

2:24 sadly jesus was the word made flesh. His teaching's are too simplistic for the deep theological minded people. Imagine the disciples we're simple fishermen and shepherds.