Erick Ybarra

Questions - even if we understood that the death penalty was evil on these grounds, wouldn’t the new *binding* policy rest on the indisputable FACT that the safeguard of the common good and the requirements of punishment are adequately met with whatever instruments exist across spaces all over the globe ?

But if that is a matter of dispute, say between Nigeria and the US, doesn’t this policy then become one of prudence rather than doctrine?

If so, wouldn’t this all hinge on whether the Church has the power to impose its understanding of the culture, society, and the penal effectiveness, all decisions based on facts that might be disputed…. ultimately taking that determination away from the State who has been appointed to make that judgment call?

@LilaGraceRose ,

I think you are not understanding the revision (CCC 2267). It has very little, if anything, to do with mercy. Because, in this case, mercy is withholding punishment to the one who deserves death. However, for Pope Francis, the worst of criminals (beyond imagination) are still untouchable and retain the RIGHT to life.

So it’s not a matter of mercy, first and foremost.

Rather, Francis and Leo XIV are saying that the worst criminal doesn’t lose his or her RIGHT to finish the course of their life until natural death.

In other words, an unborn baby and 1998 Luis Garavito both equally retain the right to live and are untouchable because both equally retain the inviolable dignity of human nature. And so leaving them to a natural death is not a matter of mercy but what is, per Francis, OWED to them.

This is the crux of the issue.

@NickJFreitas is saying God not only commanded the death penalty but recognized it as meritorious.

Something is fundamentally wrong therefore to say the death penalty is immoral and an inherent attack against the human being.

One of the endless frustrations as an Eastern Catholic is reading texts like Staniloae's The Experience of God and agreeing with a number of positive assertions, but then just being blinded with rage when he starts talking about "the West" because it's so untrue that you can't even take it seriously.

Come on, bruh. We gotta do better than this sort of thing.

𝐈𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝. 𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡—𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐦—𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫.

Friends, I'm not a theologian. How can I formulate something like the above in a matter of minutes, and the magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot? The above would have been the way to communicate what many are thinking the current paragraph (CCC 2267) states. And hardly anyone would have had a problem with it... unless you think the death penalty is, in itself, immoral (as Pope Francis said).

There is a reason why many of us are not convinced that this was the message.

Another YouTube video wherein an Orthodox priest attempts to say that East and West really divide on original sin as the crux of the theological differences. He gives the standard Romans 5:12 claim and then proceeds to speak against penal substitution and vicarious satisfaction.

With all due respect to the Priest and my Orthodox friends, when it comes to the truth and the war against falsehood, there is no place for niceness. We can be kind towards each other, but our claims can be subject to violent take downs.

With strikes me in these conversations is that the outward impression is that the Greek Orthodox Church is in a better place to interpret the Greek bible. However, all one has to do in this case is compare the Greek Patristic and Medieval commentaries of the past with the modern 20th century Eastern Orthodox reader, and one can see the gulf that appears to be invisible to many.

Two Views of the Cross | Eastern vs. Western Christianity youtu.be/DkW3YqvI-mo?is… via @YouTube

Yikes! Crypto-Marcionism has certainly crept in under the radar in recent years

I've lost count of how many people have asked me how to think about the recent revision on the death penalty and the doctrine of the Papacy. Surely, I'm not going to type out the same answer more than once, and so I'll give some preliminary thoughts here, and I'll add some more with time.

I appreciate what St. Augustine wrote in his "On Baptism, Against the Donatists" wherein he very clearly lays out the capacity of the Pope to err whilst not destroying his place on the divine throne given to him by our Lord.

In this text, Augustine defends St. Cyprian of Carthage with the example of the Apostle Peter.

Cyprian had vociferously defended an erroneous teaching, namely, that incoming converts to the true Church who had been baptized in a heretical or schismatic community were never baptized at all, and so must be "baptized". This was not a private opinion. He held a regional council in Carthage over it, and he even resisted the Pope by not changing his opinion when a Papal edict arrived in North Africa.

In other words, everyone knew he had a different view than Rome.

And yet, Augustine held that holding to such a view about baptism was in contradiction to Apostolic rule and, if held, could make one liable to ecclesiastical excommunication.

And yet, he held that Cyprian is a saint.

Augustine reasons that during the time when Cyprian was holding strongly to error, the Church had not flexed itself sufficiently in her magisterial office of teaching, and thus whatever Cyprian's error was, he was not guilty of the pertinacious crime of schism, nor did he attempt to break the unity of the Church of Carthage from the Church of Rome.

Augustine then appeals to the example of Peter, who transgressed the Apostolic rule of Gentile liberty when it comes to partaking of the covenant of salvation, i.e., they did not need to get circumcised and abide by the code of Sinai. Peter "compelled" the Gentiles in Antioch to get purified before they could be considered worthy of fellowship.

Paul, his inferior, rebuked him and corrected him fraternally.

Augustine reasons as follows: No one doubts the supremacy of Peter's apostleship, nor his merits as the chief martyr of the Church. Yes, he erred, as did Cyprian. But, like Cyprian, only with even more credit for being who he is, Peter never started a schism and corrected himself when an inferior had the courage to withstand him to his face in public. Paul, too, did not commit himself to schism by breaking away from Peter, but by persevering in unity, even if taking up the "emergency powers" he felt endowed with when the Gospel itself became threatened.

All in all, Augustine puts the locus of criminality on heresy and schism not so much on the material (i.e., matter) of the error, but in the form, and even more, the pertinacity of the will in that form, when and if it goes against the dogmatic and magisterial rule of the Church.

The death penalty may have, as Dr. Ed Feser wonderfully argued, its defense as morally ethical from the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church, or from the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. I myself am unsure of that point, even if I think Scripture makes it abundantly clear. Surely, there were people during Cyprian's time who thought heretical Baptism was "clearly" valid, but there was a gap between itself and the full "light" of the Church's "decision" (as Augustine called it). Nevertheless, until the Pope goes against the dogmatic rule of the Church when the "light" of this matter has been magisterially clarified (and, up to this point, I don't believe a high level of magisterial output on the subject of the death penalty has happened), the matter is left, even if tragically, in Christ's hands.

But never, as Augustine points out in Cyprian and Peter, is there a reason to cause a schism in the Church. Rather, calls to prayer for those in low stations. And for those, like Paul, who have received the commission of the Lord, even if inferior, to poke and prod the Papal throne.

More to come.

As I said, all one needs to do is hit replay.

“They are again entangled” - implies they were at one time released. And the corruption of the world is precisely the internal life of the soul. Otherwise it wouldn’t defile.

The Apostle Peter refuted this heretical idea 2,000 years ago:

"For if, after they have 𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐝 the defilements of the world through the 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 (ἐπιγνώσει) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐝 in them and overcome, the 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 has become 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞 for them than the 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭. For it would have been better for them 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 than 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: '𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑣𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑤, 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑤𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓, 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑒.'" (2 Peter 2:20-22)

This is one of those verses whose clarity is so abundantly clear that all you need to do is hit replay on a never-ending loop against all objections.

Get your lemonade and kick back.

Going live in a few minutes on Roots Apostolic (YouTube) to review a recent debate between Jonathan Cabada @RootsofFaith_ and Eastern Orthodox @brycejofficial

youtube.com/watch?v=WRWRaG…

Well I have to say I’m persuaded. Any Lutherans have anything to say to correct this ?

@DrJordanBCooper ?

Amoris Laetitia is coming back into conversation. In 2023, I gave a presentation on how Pope Francis wanted us to understand the document. I really don't have much else to say. God help us.

youtube.com/watch?v=on7Xzu…

Appreciate the pushback. And I understand your point.

We should be cautious about the term "canon" because this can, for some authors, include both unquestionable and questionable books/contents. We see this as far back as Origen, but reported more profusely by Eusebius of Caesarea.

In his 1534 German Bible, Luther put what we call the Deutero-Canon as "Apocryphal" between the Old and New Testaments and thus made the decision, along with many Catholics before him, that such books are not to be equal to Holy Scripture but are good and useful for edification. Gregory the Great, for one example out of many, did this with 1 Maccabees. Epiphanius of Salamis, for another, referred to it as "apocryphal." Those are two heavy hitters who traveled quite a bit in the Christian world, not to mention many other witnesses.

James was certainly a disputed book of the New Testament. We see conflicts about its "canonicity" as late as the 6th century, but Luther goes so far as to squabble with the *contents* of James. That, too, is not new. We see, at least, Augustine and others answering "objections" about a supposed conflict between James and Paul. Severus of Antioch, likewise, answers this objection. Therefore, Luther is not absolutely new to the scene with raising that apparent conflict. Perhaps new to the "mainline" scene if you can call it that.

Luther understands the author to have been, at least prima facie, at odds with the rest of Scripture, especially Paul. Though he does admit he can reconcile it with difficulty. In other places he seems to doubt even that.

Trent says in the video that Luther was conflicted with this book, but did not "try" to remove it from the Bible. I think it's clear that he had his temptations.

On the other hand, if we are going to insist that Luther did try to remove James from the Bible, we should equally insist that he did believe true saving faith is always accompanied by good works, harmonizing the substance of James and Paul (as Melanchthon did). I think many people will stop short by saying Luther wanted to remove James in order to communicate to the listener that "good works" had no place in the Christian life, or were optional.

Here is the starting list of signatories on the Pledge Against AI Catholic Content and Text.

Institutions:

Catholic Culture
Catholic World Report @cworldreport
Wiseblood Books @WisebloodBooks
Humanum Review
MFA Program in Creative Writing at the University of St. Thomas
The Colosseum
Dappled Things @DappledThings1

Individuals:

Phil Lawler @PhilLawler
Matthew Levering
John C. Cavadini
James Matthew Wilson @JMWSPT
Edward Feser @FeserEdward
D.C. Schindler
Erick Ybarra @ErickYbarra3
Katy Carl @MrsKatyCarl
Larry Chapp @LarryChappGS22
R.J. Snell
J. Budziszewski
Emily Stimpson Chapman
Amy Welborn @amywelborn2
Trevor Cribben Merrill @cribbenMerrill

We will continue adding signatures to the page as more people request to sign it!

Great video by Trent Horn

youtube.com/watch?v=VALHpT…

Rock on, dudes:

I will be on Byzantine Bro tonight (6pm EST) to discuss my recent book on Auctoritas and how it compares to Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck’s recent book on the subject of the Roman primacy in the 1st millennium.