FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Eric Ybarra on the Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Sorry, MM, but a) who is Eric Ybarra?, and b) can you provide some kind of synopsis of what he has to say?  I don't have 2+ hours to sit in front of my computer to watch a video of someone I've never heard of speak about something I'm somewhat familiar with.  Thanks!! Smile
I agree with J Michael.

The only challenge I have with Eastern Orthodoxy is not returning to it every time I read something the pope says!

:-)
Generally I don't ever watch videos anyway. I'm old school; give me written words or I don't have the attention span or the interest to watch.
Here's a summary of this from its original source, the blog Athanasius Contra Mundum:

Today we are joined by Eric Ybarra, a convert from Anglicanism to talk about the challenge presented by Eastern Orthodoxy. Eric lays out what exactly Eastern Orthodoxy is (Greek, Russian, Middle Eastern, etc.) and their many differences with the Catholic Church (contrary to popular belief, it is much more than simply the papacy and the filioque). Eric also offers us a penetrating analysis into the history of the Papacy in the first millennium and how the filioque is supported by Church Fathers.
(04-23-2017, 04:06 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a summary of this from its original source, the blog Athanasius Contra Mundum:

Today we are joined by Eric Ybarra, a convert from Anglicanism to talk about the challenge presented by Eastern Orthodoxy. Eric lays out what exactly Eastern Orthodoxy is (Greek, Russian, Middle Eastern, etc.) and their many differences with the Catholic Church (contrary to popular belief, it is much more than simply the papacy and the filioque). Eric also offers us a penetrating analysis into the history of the Papacy in the first millennium and how the filioque is supported by Church Fathers.

No offense to MM, but I'm glad I didn't waste time watching the video.
I've listened to the first 20 minutes. His initial argument "against" Orthodoxy is that, according to him, it lacks a supreme leader so that it has fractured into national groups. In his defense, he does go on to point out that the Orthodox argue this as a feature in that, despite it all, there is unity of faith and sacraments.

It's funny to hear these sorts of arguments in modern times given the state of the papacy. When the popes were Catholic, I imagine the arguments about supreme leadership were very strong. These days... well, we've learned that all it takes is one person to fall into error and the entire Church follows suit.

Where I'm listening now, he claims that, in the last 20 years, some Orthodox churches have accepted a supremacy of primacy. I haven't listened far enough to know whether he'll point out that is just Constantinople and that the supreme primate, according to Constantinople, should be, guess who!, the Ecumenical Patriach.

I'll probably listen to the rest as I commute this week.
Woooops!!  Unsure First of all, sorry for "posting and running" -- I was listening to this as I was getting ready this morning, and quickly shared it in the midst of doing a number of other things -- In my hurry I failed to say anything about it.

I don't know who Eric Ybarra is, but I listen to a lot of the podcasts on that youtube channel ("Sensus Fidelium") as they come up on my feed, and frequently like what they post.

So I was listening to this (in the background while busy doing things -- I don't have time to sit and "watch" much of anything, either) and found it informative, as a convert (just celebrated my 13th anniversary) who is half Greek and made the choice of Roman Catholicism over my grandparents' religion back when I was converting.

I thought it might be of interest to some of the people here. Eric (we've gone from complete strangers to now being on a first-name basis) filled in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge of various aspects of the differences between EO and RC... I'm obviously still learning and don't necessarily think everything he is saying is 100% correct. Just thought some here might care to give it a listen and maybe share their take(s) on it. That's all.  Smile
I have started to listen to the talk but I stopped very soon:
(04-23-2017, 06:37 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ](...)His initial argument "against" Orthodoxy is that, according to him, it lacks a supreme leader so that it has fractured into national groups. In his defense, he does go on to point out that the Orthodox argue this as a feature in that, despite it all, there is unity of faith and sacraments.
It's funny to hear these sorts of arguments in modern times given the state of the papacy. When the popes were Catholic, I imagine the arguments about supreme leadership were very strong. These days... well, we've learned that all it takes is one person to fall into error and the entire Church follows suit. (...)
The argument simply does not work in our times. To be honest, it is a boomerang. If the ecumenial patriarch takes part in a multi-religious prayer, the orthodox traditionalist can say: He is disobedient to the Tradition, so I do not have to follow him. The patriarch has not the same authority as the pope. According to Pastor aeternus (C3,II) : Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. That's fine as long as the pope is orthodox.  .A line of morally depraved, dogmatically orthodox popes with a bunch of concubines and children would not be a problem for the catholic ecclesiology, but a line of modernist popes who try to  subvert the traditional faith is a huge problem.
I wouldn't say that only one person has to fall into error... Many people need to fall into error to get a pope like Francis as he is elected by cardinals. It takes a great attack and infiltration by evil men to get to the point that we are now. Sure, even well intentioned cardinals can elect a bad pope, but most often it was through corruption and evil that it occurred. In a sense, we get the pope that we deserve because we allow the Church to fall into chaos and ruin through carelessness and evil.
Pages: 1 2