FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Refutation of Ubi Petrus
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Has anyone read the writings or watched the videos on youtube of Orthodox apologist (I think it's actually a duo or team) Ubi Petrus?  They make really convincing sounding arguments in their attacks of the papacy and other Catholic doctrines, though I am very ignorant in Patristics, so I couldn't discern truth from falsehood.  But I've been following their exchange with Catholic apologist Erick Ybarra and Michael Lofton on Reason and Theology, and Ubi Petrus seems to dance circles around those guys.  Every time a Catholic apologist quote mines for support of the papacy, Ubi Petrus seems to always be able to add full context proving that the Fathers aren't saying what Catholic apologists claim they are saying.  

Anyone else encounter their works and know how to counter it?
I would suggest you start by reading the page on the main site the Eastern Fathers and The Primacy of Peter.
Roma locuta, causa finita (Rome has spoken; the cause is finished)

The statement derives from a statement St Augustine made early in the fifth century.

In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10).” This has developed over the centuries into the commonly known formula. ST Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church a
I'm not familiar with them but I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The Orthodox quote the Church Fathers like the Protestants quote Scripture.  I'm not wowed by how the Protestants interpret Scripture against the Catholic Church, and neither am I impressed with how the Orthodox try to use the Church Fathers.
(03-31-2021, 10:10 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]I would suggest you start by reading the page on the main site the Eastern Fathers and The Primacy of Peter.


That amounts to a quote mine, which is not unlike the points Eric Ybarra makes, which Ubi Petrus dismantles one by one.  I don't want to broadcast his site for the world, but this forum is full of heavy hitters and so I was hoping someone would be able to give me some concrete rebuttals or sources that really get into the meat of some of the claims.  The Orthoox employ quote mines just as easily as Catholics, so the true key is discernment (of which I am incapable on my own).  But here's the site if anyone wants to take a look and tell me what they think.  


https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/
I follow Lofton and Ybarra as well. I have not really followed too much their debates with Ubi Petrus, though I think they have had some negative interactions in the past.

If you are looking for a refutation of Ubi Petrus as a person, and all of his apologetics, that is something I doubt anyone on this page is going to be able to provide. If, however, you can give us an example of an argument that you have heard from Ubi, then maybe someone who is active on the forum who is knowledgeable can interact with it.
(04-01-2021, 02:18 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: [ -> ]I follow Lofton and Ybarra as well. I have not really followed too much their debates with Ubi Petrus, though I think they have had some negative interactions in the past.

If you are looking for a refutation of Ubi Petrus as a person, and all of his apologetics, that is something I doubt anyone on this page is going to be able to provide. If, however, you can give us an example of an argument that you have heard from Ubi, then maybe someone who is active on the forum who is knowledgeable can interact with it.


Eh, there's too much to get into.  The dude has been doing his work for awhile now.  Youtube videos that run 2-3 hours long, articles that are very lengthy, etc.  Too much to unpack point by point.  I just figured since Ubi seems to be going through Catholic apologists like a knife through butter, that somewhere out there in the Catholic sphere, a solid and organized refutation of Ubi and his works was done.  It might just be that he is still too unknown to get noticed by the more well known apologists.  When I burned out on Catholicism a few years ago, I spent a couple years not practicing.  During that time, I began looking into Orthodoxy.  I found myself predisposed to their arguments since I had an axe to grind with Rome.  Eventually, I found my way back to the Church.  But I am still feeling the effects of the apologetics I guess.  I can't help but struggle with accepting the papacy as I once did.  I don't believe it is heretical or false, like the Orthodox do.  But I also don't accept that the papacy is absolutely necessary for salvation.  And that also goes with dogmas like infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  I could care less about the filioque and purgatory since those are non issues in my eyes.  But after seeing how the East operates (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), coming back to Rome and encountering this absolutist mindset of "You MUST submit to the Bishop of Rome, or you will burn in Hell for all eternity" is problematic.  It paints such a stark contrast with the loving God one encounters in the East (speaking more of Eastern Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy here).  I mean, it might make sense for me to just become an Eastern Catholic.  But my wife is pretty dead set on staying Roman.  And I don't have anything against Rome anymore.  I am just struggling to accept her positions on a lot of things.  And what makes it more difficult is seeing how many Eastern Catholics have a similar mindset.  It seems that the only ones saying "What Rome says goes, and that's that" are Roman Catholics themselves.  And even then, it's typically the traditional Catholics.  The majority of the Roman world seems to have moved on from that kind of thinking, for better or worse.  I just find myself not knowing what to believe anymore.
We traditional Catholics should never be swerved by anti-Papal polemicists. They do great harm to the Rock on which Christ Jesus built His Holy Church.

The Council of Chalcedon is the best refutation of all anti-Papal schismatics. True it is that many are ignorant of the Papacy in good faith, however, obstinate attackers of the Papacy can hardly be presumed to be in invincible ignorance anymore. Their ignorance becomes culpable the more they are aware. Attacking the Papacy is a sin against God.

From: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a35.htm

Similarly, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, speak of Leo, saying...
Quote:"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3
In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying...
Quote:You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:
Quote:"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
Quote:As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon."
(04-01-2021, 02:48 AM)StJosephPrayForUs Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2021, 02:18 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: [ -> ]I follow Lofton and Ybarra as well. I have not really followed too much their debates with Ubi Petrus, though I think they have had some negative interactions in the past.

If you are looking for a refutation of Ubi Petrus as a person, and all of his apologetics, that is something I doubt anyone on this page is going to be able to provide. If, however, you can give us an example of an argument that you have heard from Ubi, then maybe someone who is active on the forum who is knowledgeable can interact with it.


Eh, there's too much to get into.  The dude has been doing his work for awhile now.  Youtube videos that run 2-3 hours long, articles that are very lengthy, etc.  Too much to unpack point by point.  I just figured since Ubi seems to be going through Catholic apologists like a knife through butter, that somewhere out there in the Catholic sphere, a solid and organized refutation of Ubi and his works was done.  It might just be that he is still too unknown to get noticed by the more well known apologists.  When I burned out on Catholicism a few years ago, I spent a couple years not practicing.  During that time, I began looking into Orthodoxy.  I found myself predisposed to their arguments since I had an axe to grind with Rome.  Eventually, I found my way back to the Church.  But I am still feeling the effects of the apologetics I guess.  I can't help but struggle with accepting the papacy as I once did.  I don't believe it is heretical or false, like the Orthodox do.  But I also don't accept that the papacy is absolutely necessary for salvation.  And that also goes with dogmas like infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  I could care less about the filioque and purgatory since those are non issues in my eyes.  But after seeing how the East operates (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), coming back to Rome and encountering this absolutist mindset of "You MUST submit to the Bishop of Rome, or you will burn in Hell for all eternity" is problematic.  It paints such a stark contrast with the loving God one encounters in the East (speaking more of Eastern Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy here).  I mean, it might make sense for me to just become an Eastern Catholic.  But my wife is pretty dead set on staying Roman.  And I don't have anything against Rome anymore.  I am just struggling to accept her positions on a lot of things.  And what makes it more difficult is seeing how many Eastern Catholics have a similar mindset.  It seems that the only ones saying "What Rome says goes, and that's that" are Roman Catholics themselves.  And even then, it's typically the traditional Catholics.  The majority of the Roman world seems to have moved on from that kind of thinking, for better or worse.  I just find myself not knowing what to believe anymore.

That's interesting.  I've assumed that the focus on the loving nature of God I've experienced was an Eastern thing, not an Eastern Catholic thing.  Did you experience this to a lesser degree in Orthodoxy?  If so, I'm also wondering if there is a difference in emphasis on this between the Slavic and Mediterranean practices within Orthodoxy.
(04-01-2021, 02:48 AM)StJosephPrayForUs Wrote: [ -> ]But I also don't accept that the papacy is absolutely necessary for salvation.  And that also goes with dogmas like infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

You are a formal heretic and need to submit to the teachings of the faith that you claim to profess before you attempt to influence others.
Pages: 1 2 3 4