In need of answers to Eastern Orthodox rebuttals made against Jimmy Akin

[CatholicHere_Hi]

I was reading an Eastern Orthodox blogger reply to statements made by Jimmy Akin regarding why EO is not the fullness of faith. This EO writer brings up some points, that I would like clarification on. I would like to know what the Catholic rebuttal would be for these.

Responding to Jimmy Akin’s “Why I am not Eastern Orthodox” | † Pick it up!

The whole system of papal infallibility is centered around the assumption created by the Scholastic mindset: namely, that Christianity is a set of doctrines which are deduced from a collection of data. For a Roman Catholic, this data is Scripture and Tradition, and those doctrines which may be deduced from this data are considered dogmatic. The Pope and his magisterium exist to guarantee absolute dogmatic certainty. For Orthodox Christians, this assumption is thrown out the window. Christianity is a way of life, the path to deification in the incarnate Logos…The teaching authority for the Orthodox Church is the witness of the deified Saints.

A more accurate description of the Filioque’s history is this: The ancient Church, both East and West, confessed that God the Father is the fountain of the God-head and source of the Trinity. The Son is eternally begotten of Him and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Him. While these are the essential (substantial) relations between the Persons of the Trinity, there is another set of relations known as energetic relations…However, St. Augustine was unable to grasp the essence/energies distinction.

Pope Leo III of Rome had the Creed inscribed without the Filioque in three languages and erected it in the Roman Church. At the Fourth Synod of Constantinople, any addition to the Creed was condemned in the presence of Papal legates, who accepted it. The decrees of the Council were then accepted by Pope John VIII of Rome.

If the Pope is the head of the Church, then why is he not the head of the Church Triumphant? Why does Rome create this arbitrary division between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant?

Ecumenical Councils were never called by the Pope of Rome, but by the Roman Emperor. While Orthodox do not have additional Ecumenical Synod we have continued to hold local and general Synods of the Churches of Christ. The word “ecumenical” in the ancient world had the connotation of “imperial.” Thus, the Patriarch of Constantinople sought the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” because he was the Patriarch if the Imperial City.

Mr. Akin then misrepresents the facts and makes it seem as if Orthodox teach that the Pope had primacy among the Churches solely because of his Petrine office. This is false. The Petrine office of the Pope was one among many considerations made by the Churches in granting him the position of Senior Hierach. Indeed, there were three other reasons, (1) Succession from the Apostle Paul, (2) The Authority of an Ecumenical Synod, and (3) Rome’s position as an Imperial City.

Here is the original article from Jimmy Akin: Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox | Catholic Answers

 

[Genesis315]

Most of these are doctrinal disputes, which show by definition the need of a definitive teaching authority–the Filioque boils down to them accusing us of giving it meaning we do not (ie two spirations and principles). The idea that the Church does not have one–that it is only “the lives of the deified Saints” (never heard an EO say that one before) or the sense of all orthodox believers (this is what they usually say) is a rather new invention of theirs. Do they really try and claim that, say, the first Seven Ecumenical Councils did not believe they had an authoritative teaching authority?

I will address the teaching issue second, but the primary issue with the EO Churches is they are simply not one Church as the Creed requires.

They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; ROCOR’s situation until 2006; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with other parts, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches, rather than just one.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of bishops of one Church, but of national Churches/patriarchates (which didn’t happen anyway). They are simply not one body.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

With regard to a teaching authority just being the lives of the Saints, as I mentioned above, this is a new one to me. As I mentioned, the early Councils clearly saw themselves as providing a definitive judgment binding on all (more on this below). But, if we take the lives of the Saints our standard, then don’t they have to acknowledge those they venerate as Saints which clearly promoted the primacy (E.g. Leo, Damasus, Gregory, among others) as well as Augustine? Not to mention Saints that argued the filioque should not be a point of division (Maximus the Confessor). It seems they just pick and choose the Saints that fit the Neo-Palamite narrative.

This idea of the Church not having a real teaching authority is a common claim of modern EOs, but usually they just say all orthodox believers are the standard of orthodoxy, who even get to judge Councils. This was invented by more modern EO theologians to justify the Orthodox after-the-fact repudiation of the reunion Councils which ended in the Catholic favor (Lyons II and Florence) and some of their own post-schism pan-Orthodox Councils, which, for example, teach as Orthodox doctrine things like the Catholic understanding of original sin, transubstantiation–actually using the word–and a final purification (e.g. those three at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, whose decrees appear based on those from Trent) and indulgences (e.g. Council of Constantinople 1727)–things they now deny. These things were repudiated during a wave of anti-Latin “purging” and the rise of Neo-Palamism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For them, the standard of orthodoxy is all orthodox believers–even if we go with the Saints standard, the saints have to be recognized as such by orthodox believers. So the standard of orthodoxy is those who are orthodox. This doesn’t help when the question is what is orthodoxy–you have to know what the orthodox faith is first before determining who are the orthodox believers! It’s completely circular.

Under the current Orthodox system, some Council may propose an answer to a dogmatic dispute, but it must be judged by each and every individual Christian since it is not binding until accepted by the entire Church over some undefined time period–even centuries. If this principle is actually applied, unity breaks down. In practice Orthodoxy has not broken down as much (although it is hard to pin down what their doctrines actually are across all of modern Orthodoxy as a result) because this principle has not actually been applied. Historically, those who chose not to accept the Councils’ definitions were excommunicated and anathematized forthwith–they were not given the choice to accept it or reject it. They were accepted by the whole Church because those who disagreed were booted. Using the modern EO principles, non-Chalcedonians can easily claim Chalcedon is not authoritative because the whole Church didn’t accept it.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

Just to sum up my posts above, the Orthodox Churches, while having many beautiful traditions and virtuous good-faith members, are not one body. Their rejection of a teaching authority is a recent invention to justify there more recent rejection of the reunion Council decisions and their own later Councils, as well as to justify their separation in the face of the fact that no Council of the Church ever condemned the primacy or the Catholic understanding of the Filioque.

 

[Genesis315]

Ok, apologies for spamming this thread, but I wanted to address one more point about the Emperor’s convening Councils.

As shown in my post above, for there to be an authoritative teaching authority, there needs to be a fixed, externally verifiable standard of orthodoxy (otherwise, in a pure schism, there would be now way to determine which side was the true Church)–and this has always been the Apostolic See. Even when the Emperors convened Councils, they needed the consent of the Roman Popes.

Take the Second Council of Constaninople, which was called pretty much for the Emperor’s own purposes (he was trying to appease the monophysites) and he tried to exert tremendous influence over it. The Pope feared it would undermine Chalcedon. The emperor, knowing he needed the Pope’s ratification for his Council to be valid and binding, went to great lengths and issued grave threats to get the Pope to show up and participate and confirm the acts. He didn’t do this to any other bishop–in fact, the Pope was the only Western bishop the emperor would even permit to come, not to mention being the only one coerced into coming! If the Pope wasn’t necessary, who would have cared if he wasn’t there?

 

[MPat]

The whole system of papal infallibility is centered around the assumption created by the Scholastic mindset: namely, that Christianity is a set of doctrines which are deduced from a collection of data.

For Orthodox Christians, this assumption is thrown out the window. Christianity is a way of life, the path to deification in the incarnate Logos…

That’s just a semi-nationalistic “Those Barbarians can never appreciate our sophistication!”. If we look beyond it, we can see that Eastern Orthodox also look at creeds and have theologians, while Catholics also have monks, spirituality etc. Thus this arrogance is empty.

By the way, such attitude is also evidence (though weak) against the Eastern Orthodox. And it is rather common: one only has to look at Russian government and people, seemingly ever fearing humiliation, to suspect that Eastern Orthodox Church (isn’t it supposed to be pretty influential there?) is not doing a very good job…

The teaching authority for the Orthodox Church is the witness of the deified Saints.

However, St. Augustine was unable to grasp the essence/energies distinction.

So much for respect for teaching authority of Saints…

Pope Leo III of Rome had the Creed inscribed without the Filioque in three languages and erected it in the Roman Church. At the Fourth Synod of Constantinople, any addition to the Creed was condemned in the presence of Papal legates, who accepted it. The decrees of the Council were then accepted by Pope John VIII of Rome.

It is not all that clear if the Pope confirmed that council. Anyway, even this Eastern Orthodox is not calling it an ecumenical council.

If the Pope is the head of the Church, then why is he not the head of the Church Triumphant? Why does Rome create this arbitrary division between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant?

When one has to pretend not to notice that death happens (or are we supposed to believe that’s “arbitrary”?), we can see that the arguments (and, presumably, the position) are weak…

 

[twf]

I’m very tired of Orthodox apologists who basically repeat this argument in various permutations:
Catholicism is a scholastic list of dogmas.
Orthodoxy is mystical faith in Christ lived.

It’s a superficial and insulting caricature of Catholicism. These particular Orthodox Christians just don’t “get” Catholicism. Thankfully not all see it this way. I have Orthodox relatives who truly see and appreciate the faith we hold in common - at least in 99% of essential beliefs.

In reality, both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have dogmas that must be rigidly adhered too. And both have deep mystical traditions. And both aim to have an encounter with the Risen Christ and to become ever more like Him.

 

[Genesis315]

It is not all that clear if the Pope confirmed that council. Anyway, even this Eastern Orthodox is not calling it an ecumenical council.

What’s funny about that situation is no matter which way you look at it, the EO are in the wrong.

The debate boils down to whether John VIII annulled the 869 Council or not. What’s ironic is that it is the EO who have staked their position on a Pope having the authority to annul a Council. If he didn’t annul it, then the Catholic position is correct. If he did annul it, then the Catholic position on the authority of the Pope is correct. Either way, the Catholic position is correct and the opposing EO one is not.

 

[BlackFriar]

I think the first thing you would need to discern is why you feel the need to rebut at all?
That indicates insecurity in your own position. Why is that so?
People secure in their beliefs do not feel the need to rebut but, if anything, perhaps a desire to harmonise.

I found the EO poster’s insights very helpful for better understanding the EO position and the weaknesses in my own RC thinking.

It is clear to me that his view of RC temporal and eternal punishments piece is very narrow - well describing a single tradition within Catholicism which is no longer mainstream (thank God) and was never the only RC view even if mainstream for 100s of years.

I found his view on purgatory versus toll house style judgement after death very insightful. I believe the two are really saying the same thing and it has deepened my understanding of both.

In the end we do not well know what lies on the other side of the grave, all concepts limp as Aquinas states. This article has helped my concepts limp less than before.

We are all blind men touching different parts of the unknown elephant…all descriptions are helpful trying to form a more accurate picture of what we all grasp incompletely.

Don’t rebut, learn.

 

[Genesis315]

To be fair, the Eastern Orthodox Churches used to also teach the concept of temporal punishment and eternal punishment. From the Council of Jerusalem in 1672:

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike.

And

And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved.

And

Secondly, it (Baptism) delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed.

 

[MPat]

Don’t rebut, learn.

That assumes that “rebutting” is something that competes with “learning”. Is it? Let’s see:

I found the EO poster’s insights very helpful for better understanding the EO position and the weaknesses in my own RC thinking.

So, you say that you have learned something from the post written in rebuttal of something, and linked by a post asking about rebuttals.

Doesn’t it mean that rebuttals have proved useful for learning?

I think the first thing you would need to discern is why you feel the need to rebut at all?

That indicates insecurity in your own position. Why is that so?

People secure in their beliefs do not feel the need to rebut but, if anything, perhaps a desire to harmonise.

We can learn from looking for ways in which someone was right (“harmonising”), as well as from looking for ways in which someone is wrong (“rebutting”). Or simply from looking at someone’s position.

I’d say one shouldn’t despise any of those methods of learning.

 

[BlackFriar]

Well if we are going to play with words lets get the actual words right:
The OP here said his clear intent was to “rebutt”.
The EO poster was however simply “responding” to Jimmy.

Re a “learning” stance one of these is not like the other.
You choose which…

 

[MPat]

Well if we are going to play with words lets get the actual words right:

The OP here said his clear intent was to “rebutt”.

The EO poster was however simply “responding” to Jimmy.

Re a “learning” stance one of these is not like the other.

You choose which…

Frankly, I choose whatever describes this your post, as I’m afraid that neither of us learned much from it, while, apparently, both original post and the post it pointed to helped you to learn something.

Now, of course, in a sense, your post is a rebuttal to mine (yes, ironically). But it’s a worse kind of rebuttal, as it does not seem to actually include any arguments (neither good nor bad).

By the way, the post of the Eastern Orthodox also included some parts that, instead of arguments, offered something else, perhaps an “air of superiority” (or, as I have “rephrased” it, “Those Barbarians can never appreciate our sophistication!”). I have to note that you didn’t claim to learn anything from that part either.

Thus, to look at this:

I think the first thing you would need to discern is why you feel the need to rebut at all?

That indicates insecurity in your own position. Why is that so?

People secure in their beliefs do not feel the need to rebut but, if anything, perhaps a desire to harmonise.

I’d say that, perhaps, being so “secure in one’s beliefs” that one no longer wants to support them by an argument has its downsides… At least as learning is concerned…

 

[BlackFriar]

MPat this has descended to the trivial for its own sake.
You are welcome to the last word - whatever it is.