What do you think?
Rate this book
The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox
The Lord Jesus Christ intended his kingdom present on earth, the Church of God, to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, history tells of the most egregious division in the Church between the Latin West and Byzantine East in AD 1054 and following. How can it be that Catholics and Orthodox share a thousand years of ecclesial life together in one faith, sacramental order, and hierarchical government, only to have that bond of communion broken?
Historians and theologians throughout the years have spilled much ink in recounting the causes and effects of this dreadful and heart-wrenching division, and among the many debates that exist between Catholics and Orthodox, none are as vital to the task of reconciliation as the subject of the papacy. In The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox, Erick Ybarra examines sources from the first millennium with a fresh look at how methodology and hermeneutics plays a role in the reading of the same texts. In addition, he conducts a detailed investigation into the most significant points of history in order to show what was clearly accepted by both East and West in their years of ecclesiastical unity.
In light of this clear evidence, the reader of The Papacy is free to decide whether contemporary Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy has maintained the heritage of the first millennium on the understanding of the Papal office.
Historians and theologians throughout the years have spilled much ink in recounting the causes and effects of this dreadful and heart-wrenching division, and among the many debates that exist between Catholics and Orthodox, none are as vital to the task of reconciliation as the subject of the papacy. In The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox, Erick Ybarra examines sources from the first millennium with a fresh look at how methodology and hermeneutics plays a role in the reading of the same texts. In addition, he conducts a detailed investigation into the most significant points of history in order to show what was clearly accepted by both East and West in their years of ecclesiastical unity.
In light of this clear evidence, the reader of The Papacy is free to decide whether contemporary Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy has maintained the heritage of the first millennium on the understanding of the Papal office.
1052 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 21, 2022
47 people are currently reading
289 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 8, 2024
While previous books I've read (Roman but not Catholic; Upon this Rock) reflect the ecclesiological debate between Protestants and Catholics, this volume primarily focuses on the debate between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. This is important because it determines the subject matter.
The sources of Protestant doctrinal revelation start and end with the Holy Scriptures. Yet for Orthodox and Catholics, these sources begin fundamentally with the authoritative Church Christ established in the apostles. This Church then recognises the scriptures with apostolic authority, and serves the church through the passage of time with the authority of Christ (again, apostolic authority), defending and expounding the orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scriptures against heretical interpretations.
Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles had successors who carried on their authority. The question is, how is this authority exercised? What does it look like when Christ is definitively instrumentally speaking through the Church? Thus, a deep analysis of history is necessary; particularly the first millennium of the Church.
Modern Orthodox believe that the Church can only speak as one. So ecumenical councils are the only way to come to decrees which represent this. The catholic Church, even since pre-Nicea, always insisted that councils do not carry definitive authority from Christ unless the Bishop of Rome approves of them.
Why? Because Christ directly bestowed upon Saint Peter a jurisdiction over the entire Church in the *Tu es Petrus* (What you bind will be bound in Heaven...) bestowal of authority. And because Peter was Bishop in Rome, his successor inherited his authority. Thus, the Bishop of Rome sits in the "seat of Peter" and has the authority to make theological rulings which represent the voice of Christ.
What is virtually undeniable by any honest look at history (as Ybarra shows very thoroughly) is that the Church has been deeply consistent (since the beginning) in understanding Rome to be the ecumenical See which was "judged by no one". This was not rationalised because of the fact that it was the capital of the Roman Empire, because 1) the reason provided for it always had to do with the a prior bestowal of jurisdictional authority to Peter from Christ, and 2) Rome continued to be recognised for its divine commission and ultimate theological jurisdiction even after the West fell and the Capital was moved to the East in Constantinople.
There is however a problem for Orthodox Christians, who deny any a-prior authority to Peter and place it rather on a Church-wide level. This recognition is also deeply rooted in Eastern Saints proclamations as well. Eastern saints and patriarchal leaders have a consistent history of appealing to the Pope in Rome to resolve their issues -- as the voice of the Apostle Peter who is alone given the authority of Heaven in resolving theological disputes. These distinct recognitions of papal authority also made their way into the acts of ecumenical councils, which Orthodox hold to be definitive rulings of God.
Orthodox have a history of interpreting these statements as not genuine, but merely flattering Rome for the sake of achieving a "modus vivendi" and political peace. But considering that those Saints which testified and appealed to the authority of Peter throughout history, even to other Eastern saints, this seems like a very shaky theory.
Ybarra covers a number of other reasons why the theological system of Eastern Orthodoxy rests upon shaky theoretical foundations. For example, they previously relied on the Emperor to call councils and the Pope to confirm them, yet now have neither of these. Alas, there is no more emperor, and they have "genetically removed" the papal doctrines with which their history is so rich. They are therefore disabled when it comes to coming to any rulings to resolve the doctrinal conflicts between the various eastern churches.
I won't go into everything. One last thing I want to mention is that I do feel that Ybarra generously covered a number of Orthodox arguments, and I feel that I understand the Orthodox side in much more depth than I did before. Of course, this is no replacement for reading directly from Orthodox theologians.
Ybarra is quick to concede any demonstrable weakness with the Catholic position regarding history - and there are a few weak points (Vigilius, Honorius). But he argues that when one places all the evidence on the scale, the Catholic case is still more powerful. Many Protestants and Orthodox have concluded the same over time and decided to make the impossible decision to convert to Catholicism.
The sources of Protestant doctrinal revelation start and end with the Holy Scriptures. Yet for Orthodox and Catholics, these sources begin fundamentally with the authoritative Church Christ established in the apostles. This Church then recognises the scriptures with apostolic authority, and serves the church through the passage of time with the authority of Christ (again, apostolic authority), defending and expounding the orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scriptures against heretical interpretations.
Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles had successors who carried on their authority. The question is, how is this authority exercised? What does it look like when Christ is definitively instrumentally speaking through the Church? Thus, a deep analysis of history is necessary; particularly the first millennium of the Church.
Modern Orthodox believe that the Church can only speak as one. So ecumenical councils are the only way to come to decrees which represent this. The catholic Church, even since pre-Nicea, always insisted that councils do not carry definitive authority from Christ unless the Bishop of Rome approves of them.
Why? Because Christ directly bestowed upon Saint Peter a jurisdiction over the entire Church in the *Tu es Petrus* (What you bind will be bound in Heaven...) bestowal of authority. And because Peter was Bishop in Rome, his successor inherited his authority. Thus, the Bishop of Rome sits in the "seat of Peter" and has the authority to make theological rulings which represent the voice of Christ.
What is virtually undeniable by any honest look at history (as Ybarra shows very thoroughly) is that the Church has been deeply consistent (since the beginning) in understanding Rome to be the ecumenical See which was "judged by no one". This was not rationalised because of the fact that it was the capital of the Roman Empire, because 1) the reason provided for it always had to do with the a prior bestowal of jurisdictional authority to Peter from Christ, and 2) Rome continued to be recognised for its divine commission and ultimate theological jurisdiction even after the West fell and the Capital was moved to the East in Constantinople.
There is however a problem for Orthodox Christians, who deny any a-prior authority to Peter and place it rather on a Church-wide level. This recognition is also deeply rooted in Eastern Saints proclamations as well. Eastern saints and patriarchal leaders have a consistent history of appealing to the Pope in Rome to resolve their issues -- as the voice of the Apostle Peter who is alone given the authority of Heaven in resolving theological disputes. These distinct recognitions of papal authority also made their way into the acts of ecumenical councils, which Orthodox hold to be definitive rulings of God.
Orthodox have a history of interpreting these statements as not genuine, but merely flattering Rome for the sake of achieving a "modus vivendi" and political peace. But considering that those Saints which testified and appealed to the authority of Peter throughout history, even to other Eastern saints, this seems like a very shaky theory.
Ybarra covers a number of other reasons why the theological system of Eastern Orthodoxy rests upon shaky theoretical foundations. For example, they previously relied on the Emperor to call councils and the Pope to confirm them, yet now have neither of these. Alas, there is no more emperor, and they have "genetically removed" the papal doctrines with which their history is so rich. They are therefore disabled when it comes to coming to any rulings to resolve the doctrinal conflicts between the various eastern churches.
I won't go into everything. One last thing I want to mention is that I do feel that Ybarra generously covered a number of Orthodox arguments, and I feel that I understand the Orthodox side in much more depth than I did before. Of course, this is no replacement for reading directly from Orthodox theologians.
Ybarra is quick to concede any demonstrable weakness with the Catholic position regarding history - and there are a few weak points (Vigilius, Honorius). But he argues that when one places all the evidence on the scale, the Catholic case is still more powerful. Many Protestants and Orthodox have concluded the same over time and decided to make the impossible decision to convert to Catholicism.
September 29, 2024
After finishing this 700+ page behemoth, I can say that this is the most solid and thorough history of the papacy I have read so far. The footnotes alone would create another equally thought-provoking book.
The majority of the book explains the case for the papacy through Scripture and then explains its history in the church. Ybarra does a great job steel-manning arguments from the Eastern Orthodox side, but comes to the conclusion that the Catholic case for the papacy wins, albeit by “a few milligrams.” He has refreshing honesty and balance which is not always seen in apologetics circles.
The last reflection, which is worth the price of the book by itself, makes the following 6-point argument that I will summarize here:
1) Eastern and western fathers in the first 1000 years clearly stated that Rome was infallibly orthodox, thus we should follow Rome’s claims about itself
2) Every ecumenical council contained an affirmation of papal claims, including infallibility and supremacy. These were never and have still never been denied by any official Eastern Orthodox church or council.
3) The greatest eastern saints (Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor to name a couple) believe that the pope’s supremacy is a divine creation, not a “first among equals” that emerged from a human convention.
4) Rome has a remarkable—probably providential—track record of protecting the universal church from heresy. The correct conclusions of the ecumenical councils always simply reiterated the teaching of the Roman pope.
5) Neither Protestants nor Orthodox can say that their ecclesiology functions like the ecclesiology of the church in the first millennium.
6) The lack of communion with the pope has rendered the Eastern Orthodox completely incapable of calling for an ecumenical council since the split in 1054. (See the failure of the Council of Crete in 2016)
While issues such as Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius are valid challenges to the claims of Rome, Ybarra shows why they are not enough to invalidate the Catholic case for the papacy.
The majority of the book explains the case for the papacy through Scripture and then explains its history in the church. Ybarra does a great job steel-manning arguments from the Eastern Orthodox side, but comes to the conclusion that the Catholic case for the papacy wins, albeit by “a few milligrams.” He has refreshing honesty and balance which is not always seen in apologetics circles.
The last reflection, which is worth the price of the book by itself, makes the following 6-point argument that I will summarize here:
1) Eastern and western fathers in the first 1000 years clearly stated that Rome was infallibly orthodox, thus we should follow Rome’s claims about itself
2) Every ecumenical council contained an affirmation of papal claims, including infallibility and supremacy. These were never and have still never been denied by any official Eastern Orthodox church or council.
3) The greatest eastern saints (Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor to name a couple) believe that the pope’s supremacy is a divine creation, not a “first among equals” that emerged from a human convention.
4) Rome has a remarkable—probably providential—track record of protecting the universal church from heresy. The correct conclusions of the ecumenical councils always simply reiterated the teaching of the Roman pope.
5) Neither Protestants nor Orthodox can say that their ecclesiology functions like the ecclesiology of the church in the first millennium.
6) The lack of communion with the pope has rendered the Eastern Orthodox completely incapable of calling for an ecumenical council since the split in 1054. (See the failure of the Council of Crete in 2016)
While issues such as Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius are valid challenges to the claims of Rome, Ybarra shows why they are not enough to invalidate the Catholic case for the papacy.
February 2, 2024
Jeg syns at Ybarra er veldig dyktig. Han har ikke en høy grad av formell akademisk trening, men han er nyansert og rettferdig i måten han framstiller historien om pavedømme i denne boken. Jeg har ikke lest absolutt alt fordi jeg var mest opptatt av de første århundrene, så anmeldelsen har noen forbehold, og jeg vurderer bare det jeg faktisk har lest.
For meg ble denne boken viktig i å understøtte en argumentasjon for katolisisme, som jeg nå konverterer til. Den argumentasjonen handler om det er historisk belegg for å si at biskopen i Roma hadde en særlig autoritet fra tidlig i kirkehistorien. Det vil i så fall understøtte at de tidlige kristne trodde på oavedømme, som igjen understøtter katolisisme.
Ybarra mener at bevisene fra Clement av Roma er litt for svake, men at pave Victor er en tid og et sted med gode bevis. Da lander man i ca 225, hvis jeg husker riktig, som jeg mener er tidlig å finne tydelige tegn på at en biskop i Roma prøver å utøve et særlig mandat over alle de andre biskopene.
Jeg er ikke historiker, så jeg skammeliggjør selvfølgelig Ybarras presentasjon, men han skal uansett ha enormt kredd for hvor rettferdig han er, hvor godt han skriver, m.m.
Dette er svært interessante greier jeg anbefaler alle kristne å dykke ned i. Kirkehistorien har virkelig berikt mine perspektiver på tro, og det virker det som regel å gjøre for de som leser seg litt opp.
For meg ble denne boken viktig i å understøtte en argumentasjon for katolisisme, som jeg nå konverterer til. Den argumentasjonen handler om det er historisk belegg for å si at biskopen i Roma hadde en særlig autoritet fra tidlig i kirkehistorien. Det vil i så fall understøtte at de tidlige kristne trodde på oavedømme, som igjen understøtter katolisisme.
Ybarra mener at bevisene fra Clement av Roma er litt for svake, men at pave Victor er en tid og et sted med gode bevis. Da lander man i ca 225, hvis jeg husker riktig, som jeg mener er tidlig å finne tydelige tegn på at en biskop i Roma prøver å utøve et særlig mandat over alle de andre biskopene.
Jeg er ikke historiker, så jeg skammeliggjør selvfølgelig Ybarras presentasjon, men han skal uansett ha enormt kredd for hvor rettferdig han er, hvor godt han skriver, m.m.
Dette er svært interessante greier jeg anbefaler alle kristne å dykke ned i. Kirkehistorien har virkelig berikt mine perspektiver på tro, og det virker det som regel å gjøre for de som leser seg litt opp.
March 7, 2025
What a blessing this book is!
What a blessing of a book this has been for me! As a former Protestant, once I started to study church history and discover patristic theology, I discovered the Orthodox Church and I became very fascinated by it, and eventually started to attend an Orthodox parish.
Once I started to read the first 7 ecumenical councils for myself though, I saw papal claims greater than what I expected, but at the same time points for the Orthodox in the 5th council. But the papal claims were great overall and it had me questioning the Orthodox explanations of papal authority in the first millennium.
I still had questions for both sides and that’s when this book came in. What I love about Erick Ybarra in this book is he’s not one sided or bashing Orthodoxy. He is very fair and gives them their credit where they have valid points, and places himself in their shoes at times. He also doesn’t act like the Catholic claims are without flaws. He shows history is messy. I love that he goes to those parts that are messy or difficult for Catholic papal claims, instead of avoiding them. This is someone who has thought this topic out well. This was a blessing for me, who for the past couple of years have been studying this topic and at times had anxiety as to which church is the patristic church. It’s no small decision on where to go for worship.
I will say, reading the ecumenical councils myself, and this book, were pivotal for me to now start attending a Catholic parish after attending an Orthodox parish for a while.
If you struggle with this topic of papal supremacy and infallibility, and want an honest take on it, this book is my go to recommendation.
I pray one day the 2 can unite.
What a blessing of a book this has been for me! As a former Protestant, once I started to study church history and discover patristic theology, I discovered the Orthodox Church and I became very fascinated by it, and eventually started to attend an Orthodox parish.
Once I started to read the first 7 ecumenical councils for myself though, I saw papal claims greater than what I expected, but at the same time points for the Orthodox in the 5th council. But the papal claims were great overall and it had me questioning the Orthodox explanations of papal authority in the first millennium.
I still had questions for both sides and that’s when this book came in. What I love about Erick Ybarra in this book is he’s not one sided or bashing Orthodoxy. He is very fair and gives them their credit where they have valid points, and places himself in their shoes at times. He also doesn’t act like the Catholic claims are without flaws. He shows history is messy. I love that he goes to those parts that are messy or difficult for Catholic papal claims, instead of avoiding them. This is someone who has thought this topic out well. This was a blessing for me, who for the past couple of years have been studying this topic and at times had anxiety as to which church is the patristic church. It’s no small decision on where to go for worship.
I will say, reading the ecumenical councils myself, and this book, were pivotal for me to now start attending a Catholic parish after attending an Orthodox parish for a while.
If you struggle with this topic of papal supremacy and infallibility, and want an honest take on it, this book is my go to recommendation.
I pray one day the 2 can unite.
April 1, 2024
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that if the footnotes were in their own book, it would match or exceed the chapter texts. Some chapters having over 200-300 footnotes.
This is rather an amazing achievement to present so much information in this debate while being very careful about the strength of the arguments made and presenting rebuttals to these arguments. There is a lot of Steelmanning here acknowledging the reality of interpretation and how people can come to different opinions regarding the papacy.
This is rather an amazing achievement to present so much information in this debate while being very careful about the strength of the arguments made and presenting rebuttals to these arguments. There is a lot of Steelmanning here acknowledging the reality of interpretation and how people can come to different opinions regarding the papacy.
July 17, 2025
All I can say is wow. Probably the most in-depth, well documented work of the first 1000 years of church history I've ever read. It was a challenging read to be sure, but it took a pretty objective stance on much of the information researched. I can't imagine the amount of time went into creating this book. Definitely worth a read for anyone trying to parse out the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism.
July 18, 2025
One of the most exhaustive and fair polemics I have ever read on the topic. I would recommend this to anyone on the fence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, with their principle concern being the Papacy (which I'd argue is THE principle concern).
As others have said, the footnotes alone are enough to be a book in and of themselves. This is certainly a challenging read, but a worthwhile one.
As others have said, the footnotes alone are enough to be a book in and of themselves. This is certainly a challenging read, but a worthwhile one.
October 12, 2025
comprehensive
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews