In this episode Trent and fellow apologist Michael Lofton respond to Eastern Orthodox priest Fr. Josiah Trenham and his objections to Catholicism.
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Answer’s apologist and speaker, Trent Horn. It’s 2022. And so I thought it’d be nice to start off the new year with a rebuttal. So, this is a video that I have been looking forward to rebutting for a long time. I really wanted to respond to it and I just hadn’t found the right opportunity to do so. I think we do have a good opportunity because I have a great guest who’s going to join us on the show today to help us do that. His name is Michael Lofton. He’s the host of the Reason and Theology Show. He has a background in the subject that we’re going to be discussing today, which is Eastern Orthodoxy or the Orthodox Church.
Trent Horn:
The video we’re going to talk about is from Father Josiah Trenham, and it’s a video on an Orthodox perspective on Roman Catholicism. And so we’re going to respond to some of the arguments and critiques that he gives against the Catholic faith. But Michael, why don’t you say hi, let us know. You have some background with Father Josiah and with Eastern Orthodoxy.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. And by the way, thanks for having me back on the show. Yeah. So I actually had Father Josiah on this show, I want to say 2 years ago. Really pleasant discussion. I really enjoyed having a conversation with him. I greatly admire him. I respect him. I definitely disagree with his perspective about Catholicism, which is going to be brought out in a little bit, obviously. But be that as it may, I still respect him. So I have had him on the show. So a little bit of background there. And as you noted, I do have a little bit of background also in Eastern Orthodoxy. I went to Eastern Orthodoxy for about 3 years before I returned to Communion with Rome.
Trent Horn:
All right. Now, so what we’re going to cover is not everything that is in his talk. It’s about an hour long talk. I, instead took out specific clips from the talk, but they amount to about half of it. Because I think that these are the strongest arguments or the most salient points that Father Josiah has when it comes to Catholicism. Some other things are interesting anecdotes or perspectives he has. A lot of the other things, though, are complaints about Catholicism. And some of the complaints, I think, Michael and I would say, yeah, you got a good point there. This particular liturgy or this particular Priest or Bishop isn’t really measuring up. But that’s not really a solid argument against Catholicism. I think Michael, you would agree with that.
Michael Lofton:
100%. There a lot of those criticisms that he offered to that end. I would actually agree with him, but those aren’t going to tell me, but where is the truth? Where is the fullness of the church that Christ established? Is, in fact, Rome what it claims to be? Is the Papacy of a divine origin? It’s not going to answer those kinds of questions anymore than if I were to look at profligate Israelites in the old covenant and say, well, look, you’re worshiping other gods here. You’re clearly not God’s covenant people. That doesn’t follow. They were God’s covenant people, but they were not being faithful to the covenant. And that may be the case today. There’s quite a few of us I’d imagine who are not being faithful to the covenant. And I imagine there’s times in our own lives where we’re not being faithful. So, but that again, doesn’t tell me where is the truth? So those kinds of arguments, I just have to set aside.
Trent Horn:
Right. And that’s what we’re going to do. Instead, we’re going to jump into more of the specific differences between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. So let’s jump into that. Okay. So I’ve marked each section with this title card. So we’ll give us kind of a heads up of the topic, Father Josiah is going to talk about. So here we’re going to talk about just the dating of the schism between the Western Eastern Church and then the sacking of Constantinople during, I think it was the Fourth Crusade. Let’s take a look at that.
Father Josiah Trenham:
That is the separation of the patriarch of Rome from the other patriarchs of the east and the functional separation, at least for the last 800 years between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We often, just for pedagogical purposes, like to use that date 1054, as the date for the great schism, just so you know, nobody believed that at the time, in 1054, no one in the west or in the east thought that that marked the great schism and that was somehow, the road that we shouldn’t have crossed. And that was the end. If we really had to pin a date, I think a much better date to solidify the sense of the great schism is the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. It was at that time when the Latin crusaders got misdirected and they came into Constantinople and killed our bishops and priests and raped our nuns on our altars. That is when we said, you know what? I don’t think we’re one.
Trent Horn:
Okay. And then that’s something that you hear all the time. It’s been 800 years since the sack of Constantinople, but even this, it’s not an accurate portrayal. The one thing that I would say Father Josiah is accurate about is that it’s not like in the year 1054, every Catholic, everyone in the west and everyone in the east said, we’re in separate churches now. Most people in their villages had no idea what would’ve been going on about the mutual excommunications between the Pope and the Eastern patriarchs. So I think he’s right about that, but then he gets it wrong when he says, ah, it was definitely, the real season was this tragic event during the Fourth Crusade where you have crusaders not attacking Muslims who have secured the holy land, but they’re attacking fellow Christians in Constantinople. But even here you would agree he’s getting the history wrong.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. You know, I’d hate to quibble with him over dates here, but I do want to note that in 1089, Bishop Gallisnisware is a Eastern Orthodox Priest. He notes in 1089, the Emperor asks the patriarch of Constantinople, why is it that we aren’t commemorating the Bishop in our liturgy, the Bishop of Rome, that is, in our liturgy? And the Senate noted that, well, there is somewhat of a defacto schism going on, not the jury, not a legal schism, but in practice. So even as early as 1089, they knew something was wrong. Although there had been some problems prior to 1054 as well. And, of course, afterwards. I’m not so sure that 1204 though is really when we could say the schism was really solidified. It definitely hurt relations between Catholics and Orthodox. And you can in fact, see contemporary exchanges between the Latin patriarch and some of the citizens of Constantinople on this question right after 1204 in the year 1206.
Michael Lofton:
And it’s clear that they don’t think that they’re in union with one another, at least the Greeks didn’t think that they’re in union with the Latins. So you do have definitely a partial schism going on in 1204. I’m of the opinion that really it’s the repudiation of the council of Florence that really solidified it. But Callissis, where again, a Bishop in Eastern Orthodoxy, is going to rightly note that even after Florence, as late as the 1700s, you have communion taking place between some Catholics and some Orthodox, especially in the middle east, sharing in the sacraments of confession, preachers going and preaching in each other’s churches, ordinations from each other’s bishops. So you do have some sharing and sacred things, even until the 1750s. At that point, it becomes very clear that, okay, that’s going to stop and there really is a permanent schism or an official schism at this point.
Trent Horn:
Because it takes a while for this. It might at the level of bishops or patriarchs, it has to filter down to other priests and lay people who might still be in communion with one another. So it was a gradual process leading up to 1054. And then the effects from there are gradually felt outwards. Well, let’s talk a little bit about the, well, and I agree with you that Florence, so for people who don’t know, the Ecumenical Council of Florence was the attempted reunion council between east and west, that didn’t succeed. But that is, I think, where a lot of people might say, okay, we tried to bring this together, but there are still these theological divisions.
Trent Horn:
Let’s talk just a little bit before we go to the next part about the sack of Constantinople, because I thought the Pope had excommunicated some of those crusaders, not like the Pope just sent them into Constantinople.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah, that’s correct. Pope Innocent III had already warned these particular crusaders. First of all, if you attack the city of Zara, you’re automatically excommunicated. And the city of Zara was actually under a Christian Crusader. So if you’re going and attacking another Christian city, you’re automatically excommunicated. And in fact, prior to 1204, they did just that. So these were people who were already excommunicated from the Catholic Church who go and sacked Constantinople. Pope Innocent III was horrified by this. He rejected it. There is some criticism that can be offered here, though, of Pope Innocent III, even though he didn’t agree with it, he still allowed there to be a patriarch set up there in Constantinople, replacing the Orthodox patriarch. And that did cause some problems. So we might be able to criticize Pope Innocent there, but we can’t criticize him in so far as him approving of this. He did not approve of it. And these were not Catholics in good standing. These were excommunicated people.
Trent Horn:
And that’s important to know. All right, let’s check the next section.
Father Josiah Trenham:
So while maintaining the integrity of Orthodoxy that we, after the schism, continued to believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church, and that that church is found in the Orthodox Church, not in the Roman Catholic Church, the typical Latin line for seven centuries that is found, for instance, in Thomas Aquinas’s book that he wrote against the Greeks, which means against the Orthodox, just like we would say against the Latins, in which he said any Christian, any person, not in communion with the Bishop of Rome is damned. That would be us. That position was radically altered by the Latins. First tenuously at the beginning of the 20th century, it came into full force in the middle of the 20th century.
Father Josiah Trenham:
I have a book which is a collection of Papal documents of the 20th century about the Eastern church and one after another, they grow progressively more positive to us until they really reached a climax in Pope John Paul II’s Orientale Lumen, and he made explicit affirmations about the legitimacy of Orthodoxy. Not that we cared that much, but it was a nice recalibration of Catholic thinking about us, in which he affirmed the integrity of the Orthodox Church, suggesting that even though we didn’t really know it, we were Catholic. By the way, Vatican II also made that suggestion, which is rather insulting about Protestants, that their baptism is really a Catholic baptism. They just don’t know it. So all the Protestants are really Catholics, very interesting theology. Not something they ever believed before that.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So we have a lot to break down there, but there’s this idea I think what he’s trying to say is that, look, you had this very exclusivist tone in your theology. It’s either the Catholic Church or bust since the schism, but now, in the modern age, you’re trying to play a lot nicer, even trying to say that we’re all Catholic in some way. But I would probably say, well, no, that’s not the case. The church has always recognized that even people who failed to recognize the authority of the Pope, for example, that there’s still these imperfect bonds of communion that we can have with these other Christians, even while still recognizing the differences there. So what would you say to this idea that he’s saying that, oh, this is just a modern novelty?
Michael Lofton:
It’s definitely not a modern novelty. The issue of those who are not formally Catholic in relation to the Catholic Church, those people. That has been something that has developed in the last 2000 years, but substantially there has been the claim that formal membership in the Catholic Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation. It’s the ordinary means that God uses, but it’s not absolutely necessary. And it’s possible that someone could be united to the church without being a formal member, a card carrying Catholic, if you will. So that’s nothing new, especially in relation to the Eastern Orthodox, because we’ve noted for a very long time that they have valid sacraments. They have valid bishops with apostolic succession. They have sacraments that offer grace. So we’ve recognized this for a very long time. In fact, it wouldn’t be possible for the Popes in the last 500 years or so to be able to, on certain occasions, say that Catholics and Orthodox can actually share in holy communion with one another.
Michael Lofton:
That wouldn’t be possible if we believed that they were automatically damned and they don’t have grace. And I also want to note something that he said there about Aquinas, if you don’t mind. Dr. Marcus Plested, who is an Eastern Orthodox historian and theologian, really nice guy, had him on my show and really enjoyed his talk. He notes this about St. Thomas Aquinas, “He steadfastly refrains from designating the Greeks as heretics. Preferring rather to speak of their errors born of ignorance or stubbornness.” And elsewhere he says, “The Greeks were undoubtedly to be seen as church, possessed of grace and inheritors of a shared tradition.” Of course, he’s speaking in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. So he’s rightly noting that Aquinas notes that there actually could be a mitigation of culpability here. In fact, maybe no culpability due to ignorance. And we have this concept called invincible ignorance. This is nothing new. This was a concept that Aquinas was familiar and speaks about and is Summa Theologica. And again, he himself recognizes that the Eastern Orthodox are possessed of grace. Their sacraments have grace. So in other words, they can be saved. It’s possible. As long as they are ignorant about the claims about the Catholic Church, about the Papacy. They’re not putting an impediment between them and God and the sacraments and the grace that they’re receiving in the sacraments.
Trent Horn:
So it is important because Father Josiah, he says, oh, he got Aquinas here against the Greeks. Well, anyone you have a theological disagreement with, you might write a treatise, you’ll be against so and so. But clearly Aquinas would not say that the Greeks, the Eastern Christians, would not say that against the Greeks or against the infidels, that these are the same kinds of people. They’re not because one has the grace of the sacraments and valid holy orders and one doesn’t. We’ve always recognized as worlds apart
Michael Lofton:
That’s Aquinas’s position, right? He would see them very differently than someone who is an infidel. Again, he does not think that the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox are culpably ignorant or are deliberately putting barriers between themselves and God on the matter of the Papacy or the Filioque or something like that. He tends to think that this is due to ignorance or stubbornness as Dr. Plested noted. And you might say but the Greeks are familiar with the Papal claims. They heard these claims. So therefore they’re not ignorant. But we’ve long noted our theologians and even Popes have given approbation to this. We’ve long noted in the Catholic Church, that just simply hearing the claim of the Catholic Church isn’t necessarily what makes you culpable. It’s that the gospel and the truth has been presented to you in a convincing way, but you are choosing to reject the truth. That’s not the case for the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox in Aquinas’s day and today as well. So really there isn’t a change here substantially. There is a shifting in attitude. There’s definitely that. There’s a shifting in tone and a shifting in attitude. But I wouldn’t say that there’s a major substantial change here on part of Catholics in the way that we perceive Eastern Orthodox.
Trent Horn:
Right. All right. The next part is the concern about the title, should we called the Pope the Patriarch of the West?
Father Josiah Trenham:
Benedict XVI continued John Paul II’s view of the Orthodox East with some slight changes. One of the first things that Benedict XVI did when he became Pope was to slim down the titles for the Pope, and he removed immediately one title. And it made us sad because it was the one title we actually liked, which is called Patriarch of the West. He removed that. Didn’t fit well with Papal infallibility. It sounds too collegial. One of the patriarchs, we weren’t, I wasn’t suggesting that he was a contemporary Patriarch of the West. He’s not, or was not. But that was, if we were going to make a approach more with the Catholic Church, that would be the title we would want the new Pope, wants to be Orthodox to emphasize, and downplay the rest.
Trent Horn:
All righty. So is the Pope the Patriarch of the West? My understanding was, I think it was in 2006 that, I mean over time, different titles for the Pope have appeared and have been used in various ways over the centuries. And this one was retired, I think with a few others, in 2006. Primarily because it’s unclear, especially since the term “west” means different things to different people. Are you talking about the Western hemisphere or Western culture? Because we would say the west, does that include Australia, New Zealand? So I think it’s important to say, well, we’re striving for clarity here and understanding how the Pope should be referred. I don’t know. What do you think about this?
Michael Lofton:
You hit the head on the nail. I mean the Vatican tells us exactly why it was dropped and you mentioned it, because the title was unclear to the average person today. Now you might disagree with this decision by the Pope. This is a Prudential decision. Again, you might think that well, I don’t think that was the best idea. But that’s why it was dropped. Not because of what Father Josiah says. And that was because this doesn’t fit well with Papal infallibility or conciliarism. I don’t know where he got that from. But the concept of the Pope being a patriarch is completely compatible with Papal infallibility and with collegiality, as he noted there. It’s perfectly compatible because there are different levels of authority that the Pope can exercise, patriarchal authority. He can exercise just regular Episcopal authority in his own diocese. He can exercise his universal authority.
Trent Horn:
He has so many titles relating to a lot of his levels of authority. I think he’s also called the Primate of Italy, for example, the Sovereign of the Holy See. So there’s different ways how he exercises authority. But it’s also confusing because if you say, oh, well the Pope is the Patriarch of the West, well, what about people who recognize the Pope’s authority who live in the East, that are part of the Eastern Christian Catholic Churches that it seems like you have a direct contradiction there that you’re rejecting that these people recognize that he is not just one Bishop or one patriarch among many.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. That’s absolutely true. And that, as you’re saying, I mean, and he wears a lot of hats. So there’s different levels of authority that he can exercise. So the concept of him exercising his patriarchal authority or being Patriarch of the West is not incompatible with Papal infallibility, but the title might be unclear today. And therefore the title, not necessarily the office, was dropped. So I don’t know where Father Josiah got that from. I did not find that to be accurate.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. All right. Let’s check this out.
Father Josiah Trenham:
I said, this Fatima revelation. Russia is going to be converted. I said, forgive me. You really think that’s what the Virgin Mary, if the Virgin Mary did this, came in, appeared to these girls. Do you really think that’s what she meant? I said, because we Orthodox think that’s utter total nonsense. And he said to me, he said, oh, he’s a very high voice. He said, oh Father, I know something about this. He goes, I am personally acquainted with the youngest of the daughters. And I have corresponded with her on many occasions. I think she just died within this last year. He said, I wrote her that very question. I said, tell me what you said. He said, I wrote her a letter. And I said, did the Virgin Mary, in your understanding, mean that Russia would become Roman Catholic or that Russia would return to her Orthodox Christianity. And the daughter, according to Don Pio wrote back and said, it’s my understanding that the Virgin Mary meant that Russia would return to its Orthodox Christianity. Very interesting. I asked him if he was going to publish the letter. It’d be very nice if he would. It’d be very, very nice if he would.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So this is something I think, and it’s interesting when we talked earlier about how we view the Orthodox different than other non-Catholics. So, like when we talk about reaching out to the Orthodox, we talk about union, unification, reunion. Rather than other terms like evangelization, which we’d use for non-Christians. And frankly, even for some Protestants who don’t have the sacraments like we do. Even though if it’s not canonically proper, it feels almost proper in some sense. But here we talk about union and what are things that can divide us. And I think one thing that can be difficult, honestly, is a difference in piety. Just how different pious practices in the west versus the east, that can almost feel like a culture shock and things like certain Marion apparitions or Fatima, something that’s very popular in the west, in the east it might be seen in a different light. Especially this issue of Fatima, the conversion of Russia. So here Father Josiah is talking about, he had a conversation with a Catholic. I don’t remember exactly who. But talking and the questions is raised. And I think the question you and I need to address is, how should Eastern Orthodox look at the apparitions of Fatima and understanding the conversion of Russia and the place of the Russian Orthodox church? So what would your response be?
Michael Lofton:
A lot of Orthodox see the apparition as demonic. And I do think that’s problematic. Those who have more of a…
Trent Horn:
But they’re not bound to accept it. If they did come [crosstalk 00:24:30] with us, they wouldn’t have to.
Michael Lofton:
Right, right.
Trent Horn:
It’s still hard.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Now, now of course we do have some liturgical veneration of the Virgin here when, in relation to this private revelation. So that would cause some problems if they absolutely rejected it.
Trent Horn:
Why do you think they find it to be demonic?
Michael Lofton:
You know, some of the reasons why I’ve heard before is they, for example, some would say that we are without grace. And so the Virgin Mary would not come and say these things. That’s clearly not the Virgin, that has to be a demon imitating to be the Virgin because we’re graceless Latins.
Trent Horn:
That’s interesting because that’s what a lot of, when I read Protestant apologies, ones who will defend the resurrection for example, and a lot of them will admit you’re right. There’s just as much or more evidence for Marian apparitions than for the appearances of Jesus to the apostles. So they’ll admit, yeah, this did happen, but their theology, they can’t accept it. So I guess it’s hard that for a fair number of Orthodox, they would think that we are, because I guess that’s what’s hard for our listeners to wrap their heads around, that it seems we are more understanding and willing to see a stronger bond between us and the Orthodox than many of the Orthodox are willing to see in reverse. Is that the case?
Michael Lofton:
Yes, because I do think that one of the main reasons is we have an objective way to identify true versus false propositions doctrinally. So we have a magisterium that is able to settle some of these issues. So we have an objective way of identifying, okay, well, could there be people out there that are not formally Catholic, but are still related to the church, that are still perhaps imperfectly participating in the graces that are in the church. Whereas with Orthodoxy, there really isn’t that objective magisterial mechanism to settle these questions. So it’s a free for all. Some are going to have a similar view to what you find in Catholicism. Some are going to have the grace spigot view that basically says outside of the formal bounds of Eastern Orthodoxy, there is no grace. Others are going to just say, well, outside of the visible bounds, we just don’t know. You’ll, you’ll find a lot of different views out there. But for those who say that there is no grace outside of the visible bounds of Eastern Orthodoxy, they’re generally going to be the ones who take that harsh tone when it comes to this prophecy.
Trent Horn:
What do you think those who might be more open as Orthodox understanding Marion apparitions at Fatima? Could they hold the view that what Fatima is talking about is related to just Russia, just embracing the gospel or Christianity. Do you think that’s an alive option for them?
Michael Lofton:
It is an option because I’ve spoken to Fatima scholars here. I’ve also looked at the information myself and from the best that I can tell it’s a little uncertain what exactly was meant here by Russia would be converted. Are we just saying that they would be converted from atheism back to their Orthodox roots? That was one option that Father Josiah mentioned. Another one that he mentioned was that they would be converted to Roman Catholicism. I don’t think that that’s what’s being said because that’s definitely not even the case today with Eastern Catholics. They’re not Roman Catholics in the sense that they’re not Latin Catholics, they’re in communion with Rome. And in that sense, Roman Catholics. But I think that’s more of a misnomer. There’s a third option here. And that is that they would return to their Orthodox roots, but then join Communion with Rome. That’s also a third possibility. You’re able to hold to either three.
Trent Horn:
Okay. All right. Next up. We’ll get to one of the major differences here. And that would be the Filioque Controversy. Filioque being the part of this, the Creed, the Nicine Constantinople Creed. When we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. So let’s listen to Father Josiah and we’ll break it down for everyone.
Father Josiah Trenham:
First you would find that the greatest or what St. Photius called the Crown of all Evils, is the heresy in the Nicine Creed that was inserted by the Catholics called the Filioque. This erroneous teaching about the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, Filioque, and from the Son does tremendous violence to our teaching about God. And the consequences of that heresy are immense, are immense. It wasn’t the simple fact that the Pope showed extreme arrogance in altering the one ecumenical Creed of the church, that the Fathers who articulated it said could not be changed even in a syllable – fee – li – oh – que. That’s four syllables. It wasn’t just that. That was an issue. And that’s a secondary issue. In fact, today, if you were using the typical 19th and 20th century priestly liturgical books, what we would call in English, The Book of Needs, the Epiloguian, where the priests would read the prayers for receiving converts from different faith traditions.
Father Josiah Trenham:
If you open the page to how to receive converts from Roman Catholicism, the renunciations that are made focus on two things, the Filioque, and Papal infallibility. Those are the two things that the priest is going to make sure, in front of the whole community, converts from Roman of Catholicism are very clear about, and they publicly renounce. Filioque, as St. Photius said, was the Crown of Evils. It might have been raised as early as 767, certainly in the Frankish Kingdom of Charlemagne and following the Filioque was [inaudible 00:30:48].
Father Josiah Trenham:
By the time of St. Photius councils were held in Constantinople condemning it as a heresy, even though so many Orthodox bishops and priests today do not have the courage or the conviction to maintain that Filioque is a heresy. One of the Popes definitively said that Creed can never be changed and had the Greek and the Latin, both the original Greek of the Nicine Creed and the Latin translation of the Nicine Creed without the Filioque put on the doors of St. Peter. And by the way, they’re no longer on the front doors, but they’re preserved to this day in the Vatican. If you go to the Vatican, you can actually see these copies of the Nicine Creed without the Filioque that were put there by a Pope who said no Pope could ever possibly change the Creed. Well, it was proven wrong very quickly.
Trent Horn:
All right. We have two issues here. One would be the doctrine of the Filioque, which is, is it theologically correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son? So is the doctrine correct? Or the very least is it this kind of massive heresy that is dividing Catholicism from…
PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:32:04]
Trent Horn:
… heresy that is dividing Catholicism from Orthodoxy. And then number two seems to be a complaint about the history, saying, well, look, especially the major faux pas here is changing something in the Nicene-Constantinople creed that you cannot change. Now, everybody agrees that this was not original to the creed. It was added by the Spanish bishops, I think, what, a century and a half, two centuries later, to combat one of the heresies that they were dealing with there. But that gets us into issues, canonically, about what was actually taught at these councils about the creed being changed or how it could be recited. So that’s one thing I want to touch on.
Trent Horn:
But I want to first bring up to you, I feel like Father Josiah sort of tips his hand a little bit when he says kind of begrudgingly that the vast majority of patriarchs or priests are not willing to stand up and say it’s a heresy. I think that’s kind of an indirect way of acknowledging that most Orthodox have seen that we have been able to have very successful ecumenical dialogues with one another; to see that in many cases, what divides us is not theology, but it’s more semantics about how we recognize it. Of course, that the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed only from the Son, everything that the Son has comes from the Father, but that doesn’t mean that we just say it proceeds only from the Father or something like that. So I think… Do you think that’s right to look at that? I mean, I don’t think he intended that. But I think that in saying this, he’s kind of out of step, where we’ve made a lot of ecumenical ground.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. He’s definitely out of step with a lot of Orthodox… I mean, even the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation has this joint Catholic and Orthodox document called The Filioque, a Church-Dividing Issue, question mark. And there they note that we should not call each other heretics because this is not a matter of heresy. This is more a matter of talking past each other when it comes to language. That’s mostly true. I think there still are some doctrinal issues that deal with when it comes to the filioque, but I don’t think his observations are true. I don’t think that it’s the case that a lot of Orthodox today are just afraid to say that this is heresy.
Michael Lofton:
I think what it is is they just recognize that we’ve done better by actually listening to each other. And whenever we’ve began to listen to each other, we realize that there were a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and we’ve made a whole lot of progress ever since. I think that’s more behind the reason why a lot of Orthodox aren’t condemning the filioque, not out of this issue of fear. There are just so many other things that were said there that just need to be addressed by… Take it where you want.
Trent Horn:
Well, I think… Right. I guess two things; we’ll talk about the content because I mean, we could do a whole show on filioque Trinitarian theology. I know you’ve covered that on Reason & Theology, so I’d recommend people go check out Reason & Theology if you want even more super-duper in depth on this issue.
Trent Horn:
So we’re not going to resolve that issue here in this rebuttal, but I think just trying to say, even saying this is a serious theological disagreement, that’s fine. It’s an important topic. But just to take what Photius said, oh, well, this is the crown jewel of the heresies… I’m like, that’s very hyperbolic from my understanding. I think Orthodox who would say that… It’s not just filioque, it is all of the other parts of theology of God that are going from that that piles on from there. So I think it’s a bit hyperbolic in that regard. You can have serious theological conversations, but you’re right, this is kind of out of step from that. But let’s then shift over into this historical question about changing… He was saying, “Oh, you’ve changed it. You don’t have the authority to do that.” I don’t know where he’s getting that. The angle and where he’s getting that from.
Michael Lofton:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah, well, let… And before I address it, let me just make a brief comment about Photius because I thought it was interesting for him to bring him up just because Orthodox scholars rightly note that… they generally rightly note… that Photius himself was very deficient when it comes to the filioque. He was deficient in his understanding of the Latin concept and his understanding also of the Orthodox version of the filioque wasn’t entirely up to par itself. And I’m now speaking of maybe somebody like Gregory Palamas that you see in Eastern Orthodoxy later than Photius. He had a more developed understanding of the filioque than Photius. But more importantly, Photius of course is excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome. But later on in 879, he goes back into communion with Rome, knowing that Rome affirms the orthodoxy of the filioque; knowing that the predecessor of the Pope that he’s going into communion affirmed it; there’s several predecessors prior to him, and that he himself, the Pope, affirmed its orthodoxy. He goes back into communion with them and he doesn’t require the Pope to renounce the filioque.
Trent Horn:
Renounce the crown jewel of the heresies or anything like that.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. So make of that whatever you want. So…
Trent Horn:
Well, I’ll also add, this, that’s an interesting point that you raise, because it reminds me of how… Let’s say we might talk to an atheist and he’ll say, “Your theology is ridiculous and stupid. I don’t believe in a sky daddy up in the clouds that arbitrarily punishes people.” And I’d say, “Well, I don’t either.” I don’t believe in that. So you might have, a thousand years ago, Eastern Orthodox saying, “I don’t believe in this illogical or absurd Latin Trinitarian theology.” We might say, “We don’t believe in that, either.” Might be the case with Photius and with others. That’s why we have to have this ecumenical dialogue.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Yeah. Well-noted. And I also want to say as far as alteration to the creed… You’ll notice he said explicitly that there was not to be a syllable changed, and he was pinning this on an ecumenical council. Of course, he’s thinking about the Council of Ephesus. He’s saying that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Council, allegedly says that you can’t even add a syllable. And then he starts to list out how many syllables there are in the filioque as if that’s a cogent-
Trent Horn:
Objection.
Michael Lofton:
… refutation here. So the problem is, that’s actually not what Ephesus says. What Ephesus says is that they should not compose a different faith as a rival to that established by the holy fathers. Different faith. And so what you have is, Anselm of Havelberg, for example, in his debate with Nicetas of Nicomedia in the middle ages, when they’re debating the filioque, this is a Catholic and an Orthodox debating. Whenever this objection is raised, he rightly notes that we’re not changing the faith. This isn’t a different faith. This is simply a clarification just like you have with Constantinople I, adding clarifications. In fact, actually adding to the creed of Nicea. Because of course the creed that we confess and call the creed of Nicea is actually a combination of Nicea and Constantinople I. You also see this at Florence; they’re saying it’s not a different faith. We’re not adding substantially to the creed. We’re just simply clarifying it. And if we can’t do that, then these other councils that clarified some matters to Nicea’s creed, they couldn’t do that either.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. That’s a good point. That’s why you noticed earlier… That’s why I was saying that we usually say for short “the Nicene Creed,” but the creed that we recite is not the creed from the council of Nicea. Properly speaking, it’s the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. So if you could never alter any of the creeds, even a syllable of them, you wouldn’t have the creeds that we say today. But I think also people need to understand here is that… once again, there is room for dialogue and accommodation, because even in the Eastern Catholic churches, the filioque from the “and the Son” is not said in the creed. And it’s not said when the Pope celebrates a divine liturgy with one of the patriarchs. We are not denying it. But we’re just not saying that part of a creed where there’s a history of long tension related to it.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. And that’s a disciplinary decision. I think that that’s perfectly legitimate. As long as we affirm the orthodoxy of the filioque, which we do, then that’s not a problem. Now, he also made another note on a related point here about a Pope actually agreeing that the filioque could never be altered. That’s not true. He’s actually thinking of Pope John VIII. This is a misunderstanding. Pope John VIII was confirming the council of 879. And the council of 879 under Photius said this: “Adding nothing, falsifying nothing, for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one.” What it’s saying is, you can’t add to the creed when no heresy is stirred up. And then it also qualifies what it means by “add.” It says, “As for the act of changing with falsified words.” It’s talking about changing the concept, the substance, falsifying the creed, changing what it actually means substantially, and doing these changes when no heresy is being stirred up.
Michael Lofton:
Now, of course, Catholics are going to rightly note, heresy was stirred up. That’s exactly why the filioque was put into the creed to begin with, is because there was a heresy stirred up from particular Arians. And this was actually to strengthen the deity of Christ in the creed. So the Pope actually did not say it could never under any circumstance be changed. He just simply agreed to “when no heresy has stirred up” and “with falsified words.”
Michael Lofton:
Now, one other point. He says the same Pope put two silver shields at the Vatican, with the filioque being not in the creed. Also not true. It’s wasn’t even John VIII, it was Leo III that he’s thinking about. Curious thing about Pope Leo III, he actually affirms explicitly the filioque. He says that it shouldn’t be added to the creed, and this is a prudential decision that he made; it shouldn’t be added to the creed, but he affirms the filioque explicitly. And you can see that in his own letters. So yeah. Okay. Maybe this Pope actually wasn’t in favor of adding it to the creed, but he affirmed its orthodoxy and there were Orthodox who were in communion with him.
Trent Horn:
Right. So it’s disciplinary. Prudential. It’s a prudential judgment versus the doctor we’re talking about.
Michael Lofton:
But I would also say it’s problematic for Orthodox to be in communion with people who affirm the heresy of the filioque if it’s heresy.
Trent Horn:
Let’s move on to the next subject; another big… So we’re getting into a lot of the big dividing territory here. We’ll get into other issues that will seem relatively minor, but are still interesting to discuss. But I mean, I would say that the big ones that divide Catholic and Orthodox… filioque, though not as much as it once was… but a lot of this is going to really come down to the papacy. I mean, it always has; it has been. So they’ll talk for now about the universal primacy of the Pope and his role in the church.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Following that is the concept of universal primacy, the thought that has developed in the West, especially in Rome, that the bishop of Rome is not just Peter’s successor, but Peter’s personal presence on the earth. It couldn’t have helped that when Pope Leo I, a great saint, had his tome read at the Fourth Council in Chalcedon, all of those who were listening said, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” Forgive me, but I think that went to the Popes’ heads because that became fundamental Catholic doctrine that the Pope no longer was just the successor of Peter, but his personal presence, maintaining his authority.
Father Josiah Trenham:
And therefore, over the second half of the first millennium, there grew ideas in the papacy that the Pope didn’t have just jurisdiction over his area, but that he also could meddle in the affairs of the Eastern patriarchs in Antioch and Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and elsewhere. Not just as a last court of appeal, which is traditional, not just maintaining a primacy of honor, but asserting a universal jurisdiction, which has grown to such a height that today in the Catholic Church, no bishop in any part of the Catholic world becomes a bishop except by the Pope’s choice.
Father Josiah Trenham:
That centrality of authority is something totally foreign to the Orthodox world. The idea that one bishop would determine all the bishops in all the rest of the world is just… forgive me, absolutely foul. Absolutely foul to the Orthodox mind. So-
Trent Horn:
All right, so we have two issues here. One is the historical question on what was the role of the Bishop of Rome, his role in relation to the other patriarchs, the other bishops. Then the second one that’s brought up here at the end is more of a question of discipline, which is concern about, well, how are people elevated to certain episcopates or patriarchates? Where should the control lie in various ways to who becomes a bishop or a metropolitan of certain areas? So we’ll talk about that second.
Trent Horn:
But first, talking here just about the role, the universal primacy of the Pope, what he mentioned about Leo’s tome, this would be at the Council of Chalcedon in the middle of the fifth century, when Pope Leo’s tome was read and everyone exclaims, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” His reply, it reminds me of this Iglesia ni Cristo preacher. This is essentially the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the Pacific islands. If you aren’t familiar with them, Iglesia ni Cristo, they deny the deity of Christ. So like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of Southeast Asia; Asian islands. And he did a debate with Karl Keating, the founder of Catholic Answers, about the deity of Christ. And Karl said, “Well, what about John 20:28? Thomas says to Jesus, ‘My Lord and my God.'” And this guy, Jose Ventilacion’s got this big grin on his face. He says, “Thomas was wrong.” Or [inaudible 00:46:57] say like, “Thomas just blurted stuff out and didn’t even know what he was saying.”
Trent Horn:
Now, of course, I’m not saying that what the council fathers uttered at Chalcedon is on par with scripture, but it kind of reminds me of that. Like, oh, maybe they’re getting a little carried away and now the Pope’s getting kind of carried away. I don’t see how you can hold to that when there are consistent historical references to the Pope and he is not… Well, I guess there that’s one thing and I’ll get your second thought. It’s weird. He talks about meddling, but I’ve always heard a lot of Orthodox, they’ll add this disclaimer: Well, certainly the bishop of Rome was a court of final appeal. But he doesn’t have universal primacy. To me, that sounds like you’re trying to talk and have it both ways with the historical evidence. Does that make sense?
Michael Lofton:
It does. Let me first deal with the initial part where he was speaking about Peter’s personal presence. He says that Leo hears what Chalcedon says and it just goes to his head. Well, first of all, Pope Leo is a saint in the Orthodox church. So I’m not sure that that was the best thing to say. But putting that to the side, that’s definitely not the case because prior to 451, the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo already thought his tome was definitive, which is one of the reasons why we say that’s one of the examples of an ex cathedra teaching; the Tome of Leo. He already thought that his teaching settled the matter for the universal church. He wasn’t listening to the Chalcedonian fathers and, “Oh, they’re speaking well of me. Well, now that’s going to my head.” No, he already thought that he had this supremacy even prior to-
Trent Horn:
And also, their acclimation is not simply because, “Wow, this is a really great tome we’re hearing. Way to go.” It’s a recognition of authority speaking in a definitive way.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. The Petrine authority. And of course, what he’s saying is, well, prior to Leo, nobody really thought that Peter exercises a personal presence in his successors. That’s odd because the Council of Ephesus says exactly that in session three. Here you have Philip the Papal Legate, who is the representative of the Pope who speaks on his behalf at the council, because of course the Pope’s not present at the council. Here’s what he says before the council fathers at Ephesus, which they accept. They don’t reject this. He says, “No one can doubt, yes, it is known under all ages, this St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostle, the pillar of the faith and ground of the church, has received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, that is: the power of forgiving and retaining sins was given to him… up to this present time, lives and exercises judgment in the persons of his successors.”
Michael Lofton:
There’s a lot going on here, but he’s clearly taking the passages from the New Testament, applying it to the successors of Peter, and specifically saying that it is Pope Celestine. He actually says that a little bit later in the council, if you’re curious. Well, who are these successors? He explicitly says it’s Pope Celestine and the bishops of Rome. And he says that Peter lives and exercises judgment in his successors. That’s Peter’s personal presence. And that is proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus and they accept it.
Michael Lofton:
Which is why you’ll find educated, Orthodox scholars like Schmemann, they’ll read the councils because this isn’t just emphasis. This is also Chalcedon and the Sixth Council, Seventh Council. They’ll make claims there about the Pope that are in accord with our Papal claims, but are heresy to modern day Orthodox. That’s why these Orthodox scholars will say, “Look, the Papal claims were openly proclaimed at these ecumenical councils. And the fathers did seemingly give approval to it. But they didn’t really mean it.” And then he goes to try to explain it away. It’s kind of embarrassing to note the Ecumenical Council says exactly what Father Josiah says isn’t the case.
Trent Horn:
That they don’t say or they didn’t affirm.
Michael Lofton:
That they don’t say. Yeah. Yeah.
Trent Horn:
And I think this is important. And I would also recommend to our listeners… A lot of great different books on this subject. In my book, the Case for Catholicism, I have a section on the historical development of the papacy, where I talk about very early on, when you have cases like Pope Clement being sought out, not meddling, being sought out to resolve a dispute with a church in the East, possibly while the apostle John even is still alive; this is in the first century. Or Pope Victor having the authority and threatening to excommunicate Eastern churches. To me, I don’t see the… I mean, once again, could do a whole show on all these topics on that historical evidence. But I don’t think it’s just a primacy of honor. It’s not just a first among equals when you look at the historical evidence.
Michael Lofton:
It’s more than that. Pope Leo himself, since we’re talking about Pope Leo, is a good example because he meddled or interfered in the affairs, if you will, of the Orthodox, especially in the See of Constantinople, liturgically, juridicly, and doctrinally. Specific examples can be given for each one of those. He did that and Constantinople acquiesced to it. They recognized that he had the authority to do that. In fact, Leo annuls a canon from the Council of Chalcedon with his authority of St. Peter and Constantinople bows to it. So they recognized that he had authority much more than what Father Josiah is admitting here. Now, as far as a last court of appeal, yeah, you’ll sometimes hear that because you do have a Council of Serdica where some of the Eastern bishops are talking about, “Okay, well, Rome, we all agree that Rome will be a last court of appeal for us if we ever have a dispute, is that right?” And all the council fathers say, “Yeah, that’s right.”
Michael Lofton:
Well, there’s no problem with that appellate structure. That’s compatible with the Papal claims. There’s no problem there. But is that all the Pope really was in relation to the East? He’s just this kind of appellate court? No. Because, for example, again, talking about Pope Celestine that we were mentioning prior to Pope Leo, when Cyril of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Alexandria, writes to Pope Celestine, asking Pope Celestine to condemn and excommunicate from the universal church the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was Nestorius at the time. Whenever he did this, there was no intermediate judgment that was made, and now an appeal has been launched. No. Cyril will just go straight to the Pope. He doesn’t even go to an ecumenical council. You just go straight to the Pope and ask the Pope to settle the matter.
Trent Horn:
Right. Because he has-
Michael Lofton:
Because he has [crosstalk 00:53:49], yeah.
Trent Horn:
… this primacy, because he has a… He’s not just a failsafe option when the metropolitans can’t agree amongst each other or the patriarchs can’t agree. He’s not the tie-breaking… He’s not like the Vice President in the Senate to pass the tie breaking vote, or…
Michael Lofton:
He can do that. But he’s not merely that [crosstalk 00:54:06].
Trent Horn:
He’s not merely.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah.
Trent Horn:
And I think that’s-
Michael Lofton:
The case of-
Trent Horn:
Sorry.
Michael Lofton:
No, no, go ahead.
Trent Horn:
What’s important here is, and I think you’re making a really good point, is that sometimes the Orthodox will make a valid claim to say, “Well, the Pope, Catholics, don’t mention that the Pope… that this is a role that he has.” And we could say, yes, absolutely. That is a role of the papacy. But it’s not only consigned to that particular level of authority or something like that.
Michael Lofton:
Exactly. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, he does have that authority to be that court of appeal, but he also has a higher authority than that, as we see in the case of Pope Celestine with Cyril of Alexandria, and there are many, many, many other cases that you can point to that in fact involve the ecumenical councils. That’s what’s more embarrassing, in my opinion, for the Orthodox position. They’re venerating the councils, yet these councils are affirming a higher ecclesiology of the papacy than any Catholic today would maintain.
Trent Horn:
Right. It’s like when Protestants affirm Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon for mere Christian doctrines, but not for the Catholic doctrines the councils also uphold. Of course, the divinity of Christ and all this. One last thing before we move on, and this is, as you know, a touchy subject with authority and prudential judgements that have to be made. In seeking reunion with the East, there is this question that even people in the West have raised. And I think that there have been in recent years with John Paul II and Benedict… have talked about… can there be differences in how bishops are selected for… or people are selected for different Sees and things like that… Do you think there’s room for accommodation on that?
Michael Lofton:
Absolutely. And I’m not the only one who thinks that. I think, in fact, a great deal of Catholics would admit that though this centralized structure of determining who’s going to be a bishop when it comes to the papacy, though there were some good historical reasons for that development, it is disciplinary and it’s probably not fitting for today. There were good reasons to have that back during the time of the Reformation. It’s no longer necessarily the case today. So I think that you could be still a good Catholic, affirm Vatican I, and say, “Yeah, maybe it should be a little less hands-on.”
Trent Horn:
So maybe it might be something like a local diocese, archdiocese, patriarchate, whatever area. They’re able to locally select who their bishop will be and then that’s something that the Pope ratifies, for example,
Michael Lofton:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Now, they that’s already the case, of course, with Eastern Catholics in some of the Eastern Catholic churches. They actually decide who’s going to be the bishop and the Pope just ratifies it. I think in the case of a patriarchate, they determine. And, but I’d have to double-check that. I’d have to look at their… But the point is, it is a little bit less hands-on when it comes to the Eastern Catholic churches. But even in those cases, I think that you could say the Pope could give them a little bit more authority in determining who’s going to be the bishop without perhaps ratifying it.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Yeah. It could even be a case where the Pope just reserves the right to nullify in an extreme circumstance.
Michael Lofton:
In an extreme case. Yeah.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So that he doesn’t… Yeah. And so you’re right. It could even be there to recognize his universal authority. But they select and then he just only nullifies it when he has just cause that the person is not fit or something. It’s like the direct, centralized model, but kind of in reverse for its purpose of just… In the Reformation, the goal here is not necessarily to get the best people in, but to keep the worst people out.
Michael Lofton:
I think that that’s reasonable and I do believe the papacy is heading in that direction.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. All right. Let’s move on. Now the question, another one, this one doesn’t come up as much, I think, among lay Catholics and Orthodox. Well, it does come up, I think, more… A lot of Catholics, when they think about what divides Catholics and Orthodox, would be the Pope and filioque. But they may not see that their different understandings, or at least articulations of grace itself, can sometimes be a stumbling blocks. So let’s play that.
Father Josiah Trenham:
As we continue down the list past the filioque, universal primacy and fallibility, we come to more dogmatic realities, like the teaching of the Catholic Church about what grace is and the rejection of the teaching of the fathers about the uncreated light. The result of teaching that grace is a substance of sort different from God. You end up with a denial of the traditional Orthodox practice of Hesychasm, or the use of pure prayer in which you can have communion with God directly and see the uncreated light. This is of course the drive of our leaders, is to be with God and to have the experience of Mount Tabor in their life. To know him and to commune with his light.
Father Josiah Trenham:
And this is something explicitly denied by the Roman Catholic Church. Our Hesychasts, including great saints like St. Gregory Palamas, are considered heretics by the Catholic Church today because they taught that we can commune not with God’s essence, but with his divine energy. And that that divine energy, much as the heat and rays of the sun are different than the sun, but are also the sun, that divine energy is certainly God in his presence. How could our monastic tradition ever be reconciled with Catholic dogma, as long as they maintain a teaching about created grace and a refutation of Hesychasm?
Trent Horn:
All right. I am certainly no expert in Eastern monasticism and mysticism. And I think a lot of people listening to the discussion about the Tabor light and uncreated grace, it might be unfamiliar to them. Well, the one thing that really perked my ears was his claim that in the Catholic Church, St. Gregory of Palamas is just a heretic full stop. And I think that that’s a gross over-simplification. And I know there was a time when his books had to be removed from the Catholic library… from the libraries, not deemed safe to read. But when you read modern theologians, they talk about a revival of the thought of St. Gregory of Palamas. So that’s just… That’s the one thing that I noticed, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts. It seems to me, at least from the outset, this seems like a concern blowing out of proportion of where… This happens also with Protestants as well, that Catholic theology has firm boundaries, but it also has degrees of latitude on different theological questions to articulate different things related to them. I don’t know if that might apply in this case or not.
Michael Lofton:
It does apply because the debate that takes place here between Palamism is with Thomism.
Trent Horn:
Right. Which is not identical to Catholicism. I think that’s where the problem lies.
Michael Lofton:
Right. Yeah. The Catholic Church allows for you to take a different position than the Thomist perspective on this issue. Perhaps you could take the Scotist position. You could also as a Catholic in good standing take the Palamite position. The reason why is, Eastern Catholics have on their liturgical calendar St. Gregory Palamas as a saint. They venerate him and they’re Catholics in full communion. And Rome has approved this veneration for Eastern Catholics. So it’s Rome giving this implicit canonization to Palamas. So he’s not considered a heretic; in fact, he’s considered a saint among some of our Catholic churches. I don’t think that he could legitimately be called a heretic because of that.
Michael Lofton:
But again, more importantly, his view, his understanding here of Hesychasm and what we call Palamism, is actually something a Catholic could maintain instead of the Thomist view or instead of the Scotist view, which is kind of a bridge between the Thomist view and Palamism without having to get into all of the details. Point is, he’s wrong here. You could accept the Hesychastic view. You can accept Palamas as a saint and be in perfectly good standing in the Catholic Church. I also have some comments I could offer about uncreated grace versus created grace, if you want me to go into it.
Trent Horn:
Well, we still have a lot to move through, but it is important. So if we want a brief primer on the difference and how I might resolve it, well, why not? My last rebuttal video is nearly three hours long, and this is important stuff. So yeah, let’s have a brief primer on it.
Michael Lofton:
I would just briefly say that he is misunderstanding things. We are not saying that grace is created in the sense that he understands it, because what he’s saying is, well, that makes God created. No. In fact, here’s what Father John Hardon, a Roman Catholic, says about uncreated versus created grace. He speaks of created grace as, basically our experience that we have with God is something that happens in time. I mean, we become a new creature in Christ in time. I haven’t existed for all eternity. I’m not a new creature in-
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [01:04:04]
Michael Lofton:
I haven’t existed for all eternity. I’m not a new creature in Christ in eternity past. That happened at my baptism. That’s something that happened in time, and insofar as my experience with God has happened in time, we can speak of creative grace. But the grace that I’m receiving is uncreative because it’s God Himself, Father Harden says. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated. So, the gift is uncreated. God’s uncreated. But my experience of that gift is something that’s created.
Michael Lofton:
That’s what we’re talking about when we speak of creative grace. This is just a very, very basic misunderstanding that could have been dispelled very quickly in my opinion.
Trent Horn:
Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah.
Trent Horn:
That’s the key that always has to be made. And I think that this could happen, and this especially when we’re engaging with Orthodox or even other Protestants to know that there are schools of thought within Catholicism. We are the universal church, not just universal in culture, but we’re also universal. Think about the relationship between foreknowledge and free will, Thomas and Molinis, a lot of different view. And there’s even other views beyond Thomism and Molinism that don’t get talked about a lot.
Trent Horn:
So, I mean, the church allows the diversity as long as you stay within the guardrails of orthodoxy. And that’s why we need to have these conversations to show, “Hey, you might disagree with, not the Catholic church, but one school of Catholic thought.” So, that’s important for people to understand. And I think this is going to also come up here in our next section about purgatory, because I just did a rebuttal video engaging Dr. Gavin Ortlund on purgatory. And he talked about the Orthodox and their views.
Trent Horn:
And in my research for that, it seems to me, especially if you compare it to other issues, we’re actually very, very, very… It’s very close. It sort of reminds me of semantics with Filioque. But let’s jump into that, so here we go.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Of course, there are many soteriological issues that are on our lists, purgatory, the concept that there is a unique fire that is a purifying fire, not a consuming fire, not a destroying fire, not the fire of hell and not paradise, not the fire of paradise, which is divine light, but a third reality that is the destination for most believers who have put their faith in Christ but have not satisfied the demands of God’s justice by repentance and deeds of repentance and therefore must go to this place in order to be prepared over years, sometimes hundreds of years, to be able to be fit for heaven.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Now, the concept of purgatory certainly appeared before the schism, and there were a number of really great Western saints who maintained this teaching.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So, I see here, already, I mean, it sounds like some fundamentalist Protestants that I might engage, the objection to purgatory that you think there’s going to be this fire that we’re going to burn in for hundreds of years before we can go to heaven. That is not a defined teaching of the doctrine of purgatory.
Trent Horn:
Now, there are theologians who have speculated through church history about what purgatory is like, just like there have been theologians that have speculated about what hell is like or what heaven is like. But those speculations are not definitive teaching. The teaching as affirmed… I want to say it’s around what, paragraph 1030, 1031 in the catechism of the Catholic church, just says that what purgatory is, is that it is the purification of the elect so they are capable of entering in heaven.
Trent Horn:
So, when you look at least what the catechism says, it doesn’t talk about the fire of purgatory. It doesn’t talk about how purgatory. It doesn’t also talk about how long it is. And when you read Aquinas, when you read other Catholic scholars throughout history, they recognize in the afterlife time works differently. So, we can’t gauge purgatory as having the same temporal duration as this life.
Trent Horn:
Paul talks about us being changed in the twinkling of an eye. So, what’s hard for me is that Father Josiah picks like, “Well, we…” And this is the same thing when you have St. Mark of Ephesus combating, addressing the council of Florence on purgatory, he’s saying, “Well, we in the East, we don’t believe in expiation by a purifying fire. Well, we don’t hold to the West that it has to be that. Some people have, but it doesn’t have to be that.”
Trent Horn:
But Mark of Ephesus does say that… What’s interesting is that in his homely and purgatory, he says that the inner torment of the soul in the state after death to prepare it for heaven, from the East, the Greek view, the Eastern view, he says that’s worse pain than any kind of external fire. So, what’s hard for me is I feel like, “Look, we both agree East and West that after death if you are still attached to sin, you will need purification.”
Trent Horn:
Now, the difference might be, “Well, you guys say it’s a punishment.” Oh, I mean, I’d say, “Guys, I think punishment’s a fine word if you did something bad and then you accrue something bad because of it, and you undergo this unpleasant process to be purified and prepared for heaven.” I just feel like we’re so close. He’s just picking differences that aren’t a defined part of the doctrine.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Spot on. I mean, the issue of a material fire is not defined. It’s not anything that anyone is bound to believe as a Catholic, so in my opinion, the vast majority of Orthodox criticisms against purgatory are irrelevant because they all focus on the material fire aspect.
Michael Lofton:
Now, he did mention there about being… We think that these people are in purgatory hundreds of years before they see God, as if that was a problem for him. It’s interesting you brought up Mark of Ephesus. Mark of Ephesus at Florence thinks that the righteous, not the damned, the righteous will not enjoy God until the great and final judgment. So, that’s more than a few hundred years. I just thought, “Well, if you’re going to quibble over that, I mean, you probably wouldn’t like Mark of Ephesus who doesn’t think that the righteous see God at all until the final judgment.”
Trent Horn:
Right.
Michael Lofton:
Whereas, we would say, well, once one is purified, they enter into the beatific vision. They see God and enjoy God. Mark of Ephesus wants to say they don’t see God at all, and they don’t enjoy God and have beatitude until after the resurrection.
Trent Horn:
So, once again I feel like when it comes to purgatory, really, it’s just the name. “I don’t like that it’s purgatorium. It’s Augustine. It’s a Latin name.” Fine. You can have different names, like in the East we have different names for the sacrament, the mysteries, mysterion and the mysteries in the East. That’s what’s great about a universal church. You can have your own terms as long as we stay within the guardrails of orthodoxy.
Trent Horn:
But I think this will go a little bit further into it that I think what in the East they might be concerned about, the punishment aspect of purgatory, which I still think can be reconciled with the idea of a purification model, is this idea of the church’s authority to remit the temporal punishment related to sin and the indulgences and things like that so [inaudible 01:11:38].
Father Josiah Trenham:
But it exploded in the Middle Ages in the West and became the structure for a whole approach to relations between the clergy and the laity in which the clergy marketed indulgences and raised lots of money on the concept that this money would go to help people and who you love in purgatory so that they could get out.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Martin Luther was very wise in his 95 thesis to address right away the concept that if the Pope actually has authority to limit or absolutely exculpate any deceased person’s time in purgatory, then why doesn’t he just do it out of love right now without money? Anyway, it’s a great point. Our defender of orthodoxy, St. Mark of Ephesus, who was at the attempted reunion Council of Ferrara Florence in 1438 left us, left the church for beautiful homilies against purgatory where the Orthodox teaching is very clearly laid out with regards to this.
Trent Horn:
I think the red flag that pops up for a lot of people when they hear indulgences is they say, “Oh, money, indulgence, get out of hell. The church has gone completely bonkers and corrupt.” I think what’s important to say, “Let’s pump the brakes a little bit,” especially with people that are close to us like the Orthodox, and go back to someone like St. John Chrysostom and others in the East and others who would say, “Well, what can we do?”
Trent Horn:
Because the Orthodox are also very clear, and Father Josiah mentions this in the talk. I didn’t include this clip. I do include the clip in my video responding to Dr. Ortlund that the Orthodox pray for 40 days after the deceased to help them on their journey, and Kallistos, where everybody affirms this, the prayers of the living do help the deceased, and not just the prayers of the living, but giving alms, doing good works on behalf of the dead to help them, to carry their burden, to make an offering on their behalf.
Trent Horn:
So, if you start there, especially as someone who’s close to us, “Look, these fathers who affirm when we give alms, that’s a way to help deceased souls.” So, some of them, I think it was Chrysostom who said there were certain deceased souls that the faithful departed who have died, we would pray for them in the liturgy. But let’s say someone who died without baptism, the best you could do is go and give alms on their behalf or something like that.
Trent Horn:
So, the problem is you have an indulgence, which is, well, you say a certain prayer. You do something to make up for the temporal aspects of temporal punishments related to sin. You can’t make up for the eternal cost or punishment, but you can do something to make up for the temporal effects, saying a certain prayer, doing a good work like giving to the poor. The problem is, if you’re a corrupt Christian, you just got extra cash, you think you can just buy your way out of these punishments you would normally have in purgatory and the afterlife.
Trent Horn:
So, I think that if we dial it back a bit, especially talk about prayers for the dead, almsgiving for the dead, maybe that’s the way to help though our Eastern brethren see that there is sensibleness related to this. I don’t know if that’s helpful.
Michael Lofton:
It’s very helpful, because that’s what I was thinking as well. Tobit 12:9 says this. “Almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin.” Now, of course, the Orthodox are generally going to accept the book of Tobit in their canon. Some Orthodox reject the Deuterocanonicals, but a majority of them are going to accept them.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Michael Lofton:
But here, again, it notes, almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Now, one could rhetorically ask in the same way that he quoted Martin Luther, “Well, if almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin, why doesn’t God merely purge away every sin and save people from death without alms?” Right?
Trent Horn:
Right. It’s interesting. His objection, which borrowing from Luther to the Pope is, “Well, if the Pope has the power to do X, why doesn’t he do X?” Well, that’s not what God has given the church as it’s prerogative to do. Much like, I mean, you could turn the question. An atheist can turn it back around to God. “Why didn’t God do this or that in the economy of salvation or the forgiveness of sins?” So, it’s not a road I don’t think they should go down.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. If God loves everyone and has the power to save everybody but knows that some people are going to reject Him, why did he not just create a world where nobody rejects Him in the first place? I mean, we can level these objections all day long. I don’t think they’re very helpful. I also don’t think they’re consistent with the Orthodox perspective at all. I think it was not a very fair critique.
Michael Lofton:
Now, I also want to make a connection here. There is a connection between the concept of indulgences and the early practices and the early church of the penitential system. I mean, of course the local bishop did have the authority to dispense or mitigate and lessen a person’s penance period. If they committed some grave sin, they were barred from communion for a certain period of time. The bishop did have the authority to dispense with it altogether or to mitigate it. And here’s a question, “Well, if he could dispense with it all together, why didn’t you just do that for everybody?” Well, anyways, that was-
Trent Horn:
But that’s also helpful because you’re saying, look. If the Orthodox will admit that the bishops in the early church had the ability to remit temporal punishment or sin before death, why wouldn’t they have that same authority after death? If we’re in Christ, Christ has conquered death.
Michael Lofton:
And that’s the key because what you see there in the patristic era is that they have this authority over the temporal punishments in this life. What they’re going to say is, “But what you’re talking about is in another, in the next life.” And, yes, that’s a concept that you don’t necessarily see explicit in the patristic era. But I do think it’s a development out of that concept and also the concept of papal supremacy. When you put those together, it does naturally develop into this concept.
Michael Lofton:
So, I do think it’s legitimate, but I’m willing to concede there is some development here. I’m not saying indulgences are 100% sense seen in the way that they’re seen in the medieval ages there in the patristic era.
Trent Horn:
Sure. All right. Now, moving on, we’ll talk about Mary, or as we’d say in the East, the Theotokos, the God-bearer. And this is hard. Here, a lot of people say, “Oh, Orthodox and Catholics are so far apart on Mary.” I say, “Well, are we really?” I think, once again, it’s going to be of a vocabulary issue, and especially with the immaculate conception, it’s going to be piggybacking the vocabulary issue related to original sin. So, let’s take a look.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The immaculate conception, which was articulated by the Catholic Church that the Virgin Mary was conceived in a way unlike the rest of us and that she actually was free of original sin or ancestral sin, this is not a cause of her holiness. We think that that’s actually an insult, because if the Virgin Mary was not dealing with the same inheritance of death and corruption and bentness that we all have as sinners, which we can’t help but pass onto our progeny, which is why we bring them to baptism as children so that they can be communicated with life, if she didn’t face the same liabilities, then her greatness isn’t that great. It actually steals from her.
Father Josiah Trenham:
But if in fact as the church says she was conceived, unlike her son she was conceived the way that we have been conceived and yet still was as pure and exceedingly holy as she was, this leads us to hymn her, to praise her, and to view her as a very tangible model for us.
Trent Horn:
Another interesting part here, and this was a clip, maybe I almost should have probably included the clip, because in the other clip I showed in a previous video where Father Josiah talks about purgatory, he says, “I don’t believe in purgatory, but there is a trial period after death that’s very difficult for sinners to undergo unless you’re the Virgin Mary.” So, there is an understanding of Mary’s unique holiness, and maybe you can help me see if there’s a certain variety of views on how to understand the Blessed Mother in orthodoxy.
Trent Horn:
But it kind of reminds me of a little bit of just some of the disputes about, not original sin, but about whether Mary was immaculately conceived that you might have seen in the Middle Ages, for example. So, what’s hard is here I feel like we’re… Well, actually the one point that he brought up, I worry it’s going to cut against him. Mary’s you not so great if she doesn’t have this corrupted aspect of human nature that she’s struggling against. Well, what about people who say that about Jesus, that he’s not that great if he doesn’t have this same kind of concupiscence or something like that? I feel like it undercuts Him a little bit. But what would, what would you say to these points?
Michael Lofton:
I do think that’s inconsistent. I think part of the reason why he has this objection is he’s identifying original sin as death. What he basically wants to say is, “Look, if the Virgin is immaculately conceived and doesn’t have original sin, then she wasn’t subject to any of the effects of the fall.” That does not logically follow.
Michael Lofton:
In fact, it is the Catholic view, you can also see this in the well-known theologian Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic dogma, it is the case that you can believe the Virgin Mary, number one, died. So, you will find out resources that say that she was subject to sickness and things like death, so we can go ahead and dispense with that misconception.
Michael Lofton:
And then as far as the bentness, struggling against bentness, Ott notes that it is a free opinion. This is just in the realm of opinion. You can take it or leave it. In the Catholic church you can maintain that the Virgin did fight against concupiscence, that she would’ve had it, but that she fought against it and she never gave into it.
Trent Horn:
Like she never sinned.
Michael Lofton:
She never accented. She never accented to it. That’s a Catholic position that you can maintain, and that immediately dispels the objections that we heard from Father Josiah, and more importantly, the thrust of what we’re saying with the immaculate conception is something, I think, that frankly the Orthodox have to maintain.
Michael Lofton:
And that is what we’re effectively saying is there was never a period in time where if she were to die in that moment she would be cut off from God and would be in hell. There was never a time she was cut off from God’s fellowship. From the moment of her creation, she was always in covenant with Him, always in communion with Him.
Trent Horn:
Full of grace.
Michael Lofton:
I don’t know any Orthodox that would say, “Well, at this point, prior to the enunciation and prior to that purification, well, if she had died at the moment, she would’ve gone to hell.” I don’t know any Orthodox who maintains that.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Michael Lofton:
So, I think substantially whether an Orthodox recognizes it or not, I think they believe the immaculate conception. They just have a misunderstanding what we mean by it.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So, this goes back to what the church teaches and what the church allows people to believe, diversity to believe. So, I would say the majority view, at least especially in the West, is that Mary was assumed alive body and soul into heaven. In the East, though, you have the Dormition and the Assumption. You have views that Mary dies and then is assumed body and soul into heaven.
Trent Horn:
But when Pope Pious the XXII defined the bodily Assumption, he just said at the end of the course of her earthly life. There’s nothing in the dogmatic definition of the bodily Assumption of Mary that she died and she was assumed. So you’re free to believe that.
Trent Horn:
And you’re right, this objection, “Oh, well, unless she was subject to original sin, she couldn’t be subject to its effects like death,” that’s not true. Jesus was, of course, conceived without original sin, and He died on the cross. He was subject to death as well. It’s not like he was now suddenly invulnerable and could not be killed or had a body that could not suffer damage of any kind.
Trent Horn:
So, yeah, I think that we’ll chalk this one up to focusing on maybe certain opinions or schools of thought the Father Josiah or Orthodoxy disagree with. But I love the example that you gave up. Look, if you deny the immaculate conception, you’re saying Mary wasn’t full of grace at some points of her life, and if she had died, she would’ve been apart from God, which is counterintuitive.
Trent Horn:
Now, some of the more of the things we’re going to get into, I think, are technical issues. They’re minor issues, so we’ll go through them. But I have an overarching criticism for them, but let’s listen to the first one. Then then I’ll share that.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Our fathers also mentioned in the lists the alteration of many of the mysteries or sacraments of the church that the Latins have done, and I want to just briefly mention those. Every one of the sacraments of the church have been altered significantly by the Roman Catholic Church, mostly since The Great Schism, mostly post-schism.
Father Josiah Trenham:
I’ll use this one practical example, that which we take refuge every day, all day long, the sign of the cross. The sign of the cross is as ancient as the church. Some of our earliest testimonies about its power come from the second century. St. Anthony who was born in 250 speaks about the sign of the cross being the refuge of every Christian and the greatest power against evil, causing devils literally to erupt on fire.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The sign of the cross is very precious to us, and we know that the sign of the cross was commonly between the Orthodox and the Catholics. We know that all the way through the middle of the 13th century, because we have a catechism. This is post-schism. We have a catechism of Pope Innocent III in which he’s teaching his people how to make the cross, and he says to make the cross like we make the cross, even specifying from the right to the left.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Sometime after Pope Innocent III, the sign of the cross was changed. That change was criticized by our fathers, not that it eradicates making the sign of the cross, but that it was an alteration of one of the most fundamental practices of the church done, again, without consideration of the entire East.
Trent Horn:
All right. What’s hard for me here is that this kind of feels like mountains out of mole hills. We all still say the sign of the cross. I think the sign of the cross is probably the most common sacramental in the Catholic world, if you think of something that signifies the sacraments but is not a sacrament itself. But the only difference is, of course, in the West you do it from left to right. In the East, you do it from right to left.
Trent Horn:
One explanation I’ve heard is to how the change happened in the West is that people would see the bishop blessing them, and he blessed them from right to left. And they’re following him like in a mirror. So, when you’re following the blessing the bishop gives you, you end up going left to right when he’s blessing you from right to left.
Trent Horn:
But my overarching criticism, this will come up in some of the other things, is I feel like the Orthodox have said, “It wasn’t fair in the past when the Pope or Western bishops demanded that Orthodox celebrate particular Western ways of living out the faith instead of tolerating, even celebrating Eastern diversity. It’s like, “You guys, don’t impose your sacred right, your ways of living out the faith. Let us have ours,” wanting that tolerance, but then turning around and saying, “We don’t like that the west does this. We don’t like that you guys do celebrate this way and that way without letting us have our diversity as well.” That to me seems kind of like a double standard.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Not to mention the fact that there are many instances where the Byzantine imposed the Byzantine way of doing things on non-Byzantine Christians.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, totally.
Michael Lofton:
But putting that to the side, all Christians have changed the sign of the cross. Originally, the sign of the cross was traced on the forehead. It was not this large sign of the cross. Moreover, the Orthodox and Catholics also-
Trent Horn:
Oh, yeah. Tertullian, he says it on the forehead.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Yeah. Moreover, Catholics and Orthodox especially have altered the sign of the cross in so far as when they hold their hands, they put three fingers together and two fingers down to represent the Trinity and the humanity and divinity of Christ. Of course, that was a later alteration, very early on, but it’s still an alteration to the original way of doing things.
Michael Lofton:
Everybody has made changes here, but he also says that we made this change without consideration to the East. I thought that was odd. Why would we ask the East how we as Latins make the sign of the cross for just us as Latins? We’re not saying, “Hey, you guys have to do this. We’re just making a change.” That’s like saying I have to ask my neighbor if I can rearrange my bedroom. Why would I ask my neighbor? I just need to know if I’m-
Trent Horn:
Right. Imagine if we made the reverse and we were all bent out of shape that in the East they do it right to left and didn’t ask us permit. If that was the complaint we made, Father Josiah would lose his head at the idea that we were so insufferably proud that they need permission from us for how to make the sign of the cross or something like that.
Trent Horn:
Let’s continue with another one, so another. So, now we’ve moved away from the major dogmatic issues, but it still comes up. They are important to people. Let’s talk about baptism.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Baptism, baptism has been changed both in its form and in its formula. So, no longer as is witnessed in the first millennium of the church do the Latins baptize by trine immersion and immersion as the apostle taught us to do, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit. By the end of the first millennium, Catholics were baptizing with one immersion, which very much scared our bishops because that was an Aryan practice.
Father Josiah Trenham:
But in the Middle Ages, in the Scholastic period, even single immersion dropped off from Catholic practice, which is almost universally not done today in the Catholic world where baptisms are done by pouring, which is a negation of the very word baptizo itself which means to immerse.
Father Josiah Trenham:
And besides the form, the formula also was changed from the passive, the servant of God is baptized, to the active. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And we are not happy with that change and think that it is communicating exactly the wrong thing, placing the locus of the authority to baptize in the priest instead of the priest being the agent of the Holy Spirit to do that. St. John Chrysostom fought that as early as the fourth century. So, this was not unheard of, but it certainly wasn’t the Latin practice until the schism.
Trent Horn:
All right. So my first thoughts that jump out at me, well, my first thought is Father Josiah sounds a lot like a Baptist or some oneness Pentecostal like I’m listening to, to do a rebuttal saying, “Well, baptism has to be immersed because the word baptize means immerse.” But that’s a fallacy, the etymological fallacy. The meaning of the word parts doesn’t mean the meaning of it as a whole, because the word baptizo is used in the new Testament to talk about the washing of hands without necessarily referring to the immersion of the entire body.
Trent Horn:
So, what’s hard for me here is that he’s… I guess there’s two things, one that he has the concern it has to be full immersion, but the New Testament never says that. The Didache, essentially the first century catechism, gives multiple methods for how to baptize. It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t also give us that there’s a definitive… The formula is just in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. The definitive part of the formula is not the agent itself.
Trent Horn:
So, I feel like he’s stretching the secondary aspects of celebrating the sacrament as if they were the primary elements that have to be followed for its validity, because even in the catechism and in RCIA manuals it says, I mean, immersion, we in the West recognize that is the fullest form of the sacrament. We fully recognize it, even if we see that the others, sprinkling, pouring, that they’re valid. But I think it’s falsely prioritizing these secondary elements. What do you think?
Michael Lofton:
I would agree with you, and I would also say I wish the Orthodox were consistent here, because there are Orthodox that partially immerse. They don’t fully immerse some infants. Some do. Some don’t. So, I think there’s some inconsistency there. And as you noted, baptizo doesn’t necessarily mean immerse. Sometimes it could mean immerse. Sometimes it means dip partially, not fully.
Trent Horn:
That’s a good point you raised though about the infants, because I remember we had our infant. He was fully baptized. But if you made that a universal regulation, you have to fully immerse three times, there’s a lot of priests who’d feel super uncomfortable fully immersing an infant, and you’d have a lot of hesitation about baptism. You never want to have something like that.
Trent Horn:
The point of baptism, to me when you see in sacramental theology, in Canon law, is that there are as wide parameters as possible at least for its validity because it’s the door to the sacraments, and you want as many people as possible baptized. So you remove as few obstacles to baptism, sorry, remove as many obstacles to baptism as you can.
Michael Lofton:
You know, and just a point of fact, when I was Orthodox, my second son was baptized Orthodox. And again, he was partially immersed because of that very fear that you mentioned there at the beginning. Some priests are going to be afraid to fully immerse an infant.
Michael Lofton:
But he mentioned something there about the formula being changed in the West from the active, I’m sorry, from the passive to the active. I’ve never heard of that. I don’t know of anything that would substantiate that. I have seen things contrary to that in the West. So, I don’t know where he’s getting his facts from. I wish he would substantiate some of these things.
Michael Lofton:
And then, I would say just frankly, more importantly than this formula debate is the major, major elephant in the room, and that is the fact that Orthodox rebaptize. Some Orthodox rebaptize other Christians, some, not all. Historically, they’ve rejected rebaptism, rightly so. But some Orthodox no longer do that and perform a sacrilegious ceremony where they rebaptize a baptized Christian. And it is sacrilege according to St. Vincent of Lerins and the constant testimony of Christians.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Michael Lofton:
I think that’s a bigger issue to address than this, frankly.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting to me, it’s hard from our perspective. We often think that we in the Orthodox are so very, very, very, very close; and we are very close. But there’s some Orthodox who would say you guys are practically atheists, that you are… And I guess maybe those are some elements in the Orthodox Church.
Trent Horn:
We see this in the Catholic Church, some people who take no salvation outside the church, the Feeneyites, who go so far as to say anybody who is not a baptized Catholic, doesn’t matter who you are, whether you’re a baptized Orthodox or an atheist, you’re damned. I guess maybe that attitude is more prevalent in the Orthodox church from their perspective than we think.
Michael Lofton:
You’ll find it among, especially the Russians, which of course he’s a part of. So I’m not surprised, but I do think it’s, number one, inconsistent with Russian…
PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:36:04]
Michael Lofton:
… Surprised, but I do think it’s number one, inconsistent with Russian Orthodox on this. Historically, they have not always maintained that. And again, I think it’s entirely inconsistent because we’re fighting over little words here and there, but then you have a full re-baptism ceremony. I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. And in fact, Bishop Kallistos Ware, again, well known Orthodox Bishop and theologian himself has decried this practice and orthodoxy and recognized that this is a major problem and we need to fix it. He was hoping though, the Great and Holy Ecumenical, not Ecumenical, but the Great and Holy Council of 2016 would resolve it, but they didn’t even discuss it, let alone resolve it.
Trent Horn:
And that, of course, and the inability to resolve things in Pan-Orthodox Councils that’s an entire other thing we could talk about in a show about the necessity of the magisterium. So, but let’s talk about the sacraments of initiation.
Father Josiah Trenham:
Baptism has been changed. Chrismation has been terribly changed. In that, though the Latin West had the same form of initiation that we did for centuries, meaning that they received people by baptism, chrismation and Eucharist. They broke up that sacred trilogy of sacraments, and now they chrismate or confirm when you’re a teenager. So you’re baptized without chrism. So you have now baptized, that you have a new invention of type of Christians.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The Latins have actually created three types of Christians instead of one. We know one, baptized, chrismated, communing Christians. Catholics now have baptized and unconfirmed or unchrismated Christians. They also separate the reception of the Eucharist from childhood till six or seven years old. So now you have baptized, uncommuning Christians. You can then have baptized and communing, but unconfirmed Christians. All of this is novelty.
Trent Horn:
All righty. Well, is it novelty though? The problem here is that we have two different sacramental disciplines. And I think what’s hard is sometimes we talk about the West and the Eastern Church. One analogy I’ve heard is a mountain. It’s we’re going up the same mountain, we’re reaching the same destination, the west, the northern or southern, the western-eastern face of the mountain might look different. The paths might be a little bit different.
Trent Horn:
Now this is not religious pluralism because we’re all part of the same church, but we have different theological traditions, sacramental disciplines. And for a lot of people who are in the west listening to this, yeah, you were baptized, then you got first communion when you were seven, and then maybe you got confirmed when you were a teenager, or maybe you got confirmed… The age has been going lower and lower. That’s because in the early church in the west, it was seen that it should be the Bishop is the one who fully initiates you into the church.
Trent Horn:
And that’s why the west would have the Bishop or one of his representatives as vicars to administer the sacrament of confirmation. Whereas in the east, it’s a different view, but even still you have that because the priest, in my understanding, he has use a very particular chrism oil from the Bishop. I gave a talk on this, the sacrament of theological differences a while ago, but once again, making hey out of a particular discipline, which is changing. And I mean, hey, personally, I would be in favor if the west adopted more of what was happening in the east. And it’s something that is changing because the age of confirmation is being lowered. And I think that that’s a good thing. So this is an area where we can dialogue.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. I like that you put this in the realm of discipline because it is that. And I also agree that I’m of the eastern perspective when it comes to discipline, but I don’t think that what Latin Catholics are doing is evil or is against God’s will-
Trent Horn:
Or that they’re different types of… Or that they’re less of a Christian, or that they’re not… As if their baptismal graces are somehow just completely null still without chrismation or the Eucharist. And what do you do, especially in more rural and mission areas where the only sacrament you might have for people is baptism until a priest can come in a year or two? They’re not less of a Christian than the rest of us.
Michael Lofton:
… yeah, baptism is sufficient. I would agree, however, with the Orthodox that there are some added benefits for [crosstalk 01:40:38].
Trent Horn:
I totally agree too.
Michael Lofton:
So I agree with that discipline, but I’m not going to say that this is a major deal breaker between Latins and Greeks. And also you noted a change there that the Orthodox have made when it comes to chrismation and discipline. I mean, he’s talking about things that Catholics have made, and of course, he’s talking about Latin Catholics, not Eastern Catholics. Well, you mentioned a change that they’ve actually made. And that is allowing the presbyter to of course, administer confirmation. So, that’s an alteration that they have also made.
Michael Lofton:
I do think it’s legitimate. I’m not knocking that discipline. I’m just saying it is an alteration. We’ve all altered to some extent or another, some of the sacraments. Everybody has. I think that’s legitimate and the church has the authority to do that. And it’s being done as far as a discipline. It’s not an alteration to the substance of the sacraments, which is out of bounds. Nobody can change the substance of the sacraments and Catholics recognize that, but that’s not what’s being debated here.
Trent Horn:
All right, then, so this will come up again, I think, here in the question of the Eucharist.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The Eucharist also, for many separate centuries, was served only under one form not serving the chalice to believers, but only the body of the Lord. The List also mentioned that the Latins began to use unleavened bread, which is a very consistent complaint of the east against the west, that they, instead of using a risen loaf, a leavened loaf, which symbolizes the whole body of the church, they used unleavened bread and therefore serve multiple… They have nothing from which to fracture. They have one larger host that the priest fractures and serves himself, but the people get unfractured, disassociated, individual pieces that come all pressed, really nullifying the very important symbolism of having one loaf and one cup in the chalice.
Trent Horn:
All righty. And so once again, this is talking about more discipline and also just different ways of celebrating the liturgy. Because what’s hard here is, well, even in the east, you’re going to have different theological schools of thought that have different forms of symbolism and how they express things. So the leavened and unleavened bread, yeah, you can use leavened bread to symbolize the risen Christ, but in the west you can use unleavened because leaven is also a symbol of sin, to get rid of the old leaven for example. It’s also a symbol of that.
Trent Horn:
And so it’s something I’m going to say that Christ is without that here in the bread and wine that we’re receiving. Well, I’m sorry, I think it’s getting late as we’re recording and my cold has fogged in my head. The other thing was receiving under bread or wine because well, it depends on which you serve in church. A lot of them, I mean with the Ruthenian they do intinction, dipping the bread into the wine, sacred blood.
Trent Horn:
But I forget which council said it, but harking back to Saint Paul’s letters, there was a mention of a particular Greek preposition that Saint Paul used that it is the body or the blood. Either is the full possession of the body of Christ. You don’t have to have both.
Michael Lofton:
Right. That was, I believe, The Council of Trent. Or was it Constance? One of those, well-
Trent Horn:
Beautiful too, it’s getting foggy.
Michael Lofton:
… yeah, I know. So look, I agree with the eastern discipline here, although there isn’t really a one uniform discipline. I would say that we do need to also consider the Armenian Orthodox, although they’re not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. They are also an Apostolic Church and they use unleavened bread. But look, I agree with some of his disciplinary preferences here, but it’s just that. It’s a disciplinary preference.
Michael Lofton:
This isn’t some deal breaker. Now he’s saying this was a constant complaint of the east for the west because yes, the west did change their discipline on… They went from… I’m sorry, from leavened bread to unleavened bread around the 900s, somewhere around there. That was a disciplinary change that was made, sure. But this complaint that was being made by the Orthodox is in the context of many other complaints, that when you start to consider the source of them and the context of them, you realize that they become very petty. So this constant complaint about unleavened versus leavened bread comes from the same people who are complaining that Latin bishops wear rings, [itemizers 01:45:43]. Or that their icons look like a Frank. The people that are-
Trent Horn:
Or beards and clean shaven.
Michael Lofton:
… yeah. Or the figures of Jesus that they have in there looks like a Frank. I mean, just all kinds of just really odd and petty complaints. Well, this was one of them that, these Latins use unleavened bread and that’s Judaic, but then they will claim that Latins also don’t exercise certain Levitical practices when it comes to clean and unclean food. So it was just an inconsistent argument there.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I would just say for our Orthodox brethren, golden rule, if you would want reunification within the church and that’s the goal we’re always seeking. I think the ultimate way to accomplish that is going to be through not just… I mean, I know I have to start with tolerance of diverse practices, liturgically, spiritually, but then eventually moving from tolerance to celebration of differences and also it’s interesting to bring up the Armenians because when we talk about this, what he’s saying, “Oh the Orthodox” and especially some people who are the ortho-bros type people, I feel they could turn into almost… Well that’s what ortho-bros are. They’re the mirror image of fanatical, traditional Latin massers. Nothing wrong with traditional Latin mass or devotion to it. That’s great. But when you say that it’s this or bust, ortho-bros, rad trads. What about the rest of the church? What about the Syro-Malabar? What about the Maronites? What about… It’s not just you and it’s not just you and us either that I feel it gets weird when he gets caught up in these things.
Michael Lofton:
I agree. I think that at this point he’s just throwing out everything but the kitchen sink, it’s a-
Trent Horn:
Yeah, basically. All right. Let’s see if we can empty the sink out here. We got a few more minutes
Father Josiah Trenham:
Fasting on Saturday-
Trent Horn:
Fasting.
Father Josiah Trenham:
… something forbidden by Apostolic Cannon 66, and The Councils of Trullo over the Sixth Ecumenical Council in chapter 55. We don’t fast on Saturday and Sunday like we fast during the week. And even in the most rigorous fasting periods like lent, Monday through Friday are kept one way, but Saturday and Sunday always are experiences as a lessening in honor of the Sabbath and in honor of the Lord’s day. Not so with the Catholics. Their fasting rules, they change tremendously, including altering the Wednesday, Friday fast today beyond description, which comes from apostolic times. Today Catholics we’re lucky if the Catholics will not eat meat on Friday. That would be a major step.
Trent Horn:
All right. I didn’t get what he was talking about Saturday and Sunday in the Western church. We don’t have fasting on Saturday, Sunday. Some people take up voluntary fast through all 40 days of Lent but even they oftentimes cheat or celebrate on Sundays. So, and to me, this is, come on, it’s discipline. People have to choose different days. Even in the east, the Maronites have I think what, Ash Monday or… You’re going to have variety here.
Michael Lofton:
… did you notice though, that the disciplinary cannons that he appealed to were exclusively Eastern Cannons?
Trent Horn:
Right.
Michael Lofton:
He mentioned Apostolic Cannons in the Council of Trullo, which was loosely connected to the Six Council, but not all of it was received by the west. So, that’s the thing. These were exclusively eastern disciplinary cannons and he’s expecting Latins to have those imposed on them? Isn’t that the very thing that he would complain about latinization of Eastern Christians?
Trent Horn:
Right. Why doesn’t Father Josiah follow everything at the Baltimore Council? I don’t understand why he would spit in the face of one of these Western Councils.
Michael Lofton:
Now look, I commend the disciplinary practices that they’ve maintained in the east. At least-
Trent Horn:
I think it’s great.
Michael Lofton:
… nominally.
Trent Horn:
They know how to fast and that’s the way-
Michael Lofton:
At least on paper. I mean now, whether or not it’s actually practice is a little bit different. It’s not seen as a mortal sin if you don’t keep it. Whereas if maybe if you break one of the fast in the Catholic church, it could be grave matter. But yeah, I commend them and look, I’m on their side when it comes to preferring that discipline, but it’s simply that, it’s a preference and it’s a discipline and this is not something that is dividing Orthodox and Catholics.
Trent Horn:
… right. And this will come up here in our next issue, which is the issue of celibacy and married priests. One of the more notable differences visible between east and west.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The List also mentioned mandatory clerical celibacy. This was a big issue. In fact, their relationship to sexuality, especially the sexuality of the priests is a big separating issue between the east and the west. And I should say something too about that. As early as the First Ecumenical Council, the delegates of the Roman Pontiff attempted to get the council to pass a law that all priests, even if they were married when they became priests, must cease from having sexual relations, conjugal union, with their wives if they’re going to serve.
Father Josiah Trenham:
The minutes of the council say that one of our great Desert Fathers, Abba Paphnutius, stood up and said, what would become the standard line for the Orthodox to this day. He would say, “Look, we honor the rigor of the Roman Pontiff. But to mandate such as a law is to set yourself forward as more holy than the apostles. You’re holier than the apostles. Who are you to do that?” This was the answer and Abba Paphnutius won the day. And that would remain a point of contention between the east and the west. So this was an attempt to take the ruling of the local council of Carthage, which said priests who serve the mass, priests who serve the liturgy, can’t sleep with their wives anymore.
Father Josiah Trenham:
What the Holy Fathers at the Ecumenical Council did was to take that and say, “The effort there was to establish decency and proper preparation for the serving of the sacraments, which does not require perpetual abstinence from conjugal union of married presbyters, but timely appropriate intercourse.” Which means that priests do not have relationships with their wives, do not have conjugal union when they’re performing the sacraments. When they’re preparing to perform a sacrament. A priest would never sleep with his wife the night before he served liturgy. It’s just not consonant with the sobriety of fasting and prayer that you’re trying to raise yourself to, to be able to serve the sacrament. But it doesn’t require that at other times you can’t sleep with your wife. This is what the church is saying.
Trent Horn:
Okay. Then this is, once again, we go back to the historical record because some people say, “Oh, western celibacy was a medieval invention to keep priests from creating an aristocracy with their children and their property goes back to the church.” Which of course isn’t true. There’s several cases, the Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy is one. There’s two books, A Case for Clerical Celibacy, and another is Apostolic Origins of Celibacy. The author’s name escapes me at the moment, but I think both are from Ignatius Press. To understand no, there’s both the tradition of married presbyters, priests, and celibate priests goes all the way back to the New Testament. Goes all the way back there, both of them. Because Saint Paul talks about the virtue of celibacy and he lived it out. In talking about it in 1 Corinthians 7.
Trent Horn:
So we see both of this in the early church, but it is celebrated in different ways. And we understand that it just shows a different kind of theology in different respects. But the Orthodox agree with us on this point, because number one, even if the priests can be married, the bishops can’t and you can’t get married after you become a priest, if you’re unmarried and two, they understand that, even Father Josiah even mentions it, well, we don’t, obviously we’re not going to engage in conjugal relations the night before we offer liturgy. But what do you do in a sacramental and liturgical tradition that is daily? I mean, if you want to be a western priest that lives up to that eastern standard and you offer daily mass, you’re a de facto celibate, basically.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. Now, absolutely. If you’re going to have that discipline of a daily liturgy, that would-
Trent Horn:
If you do.
Michael Lofton:
… then make sense. So, but did you notice when he was giving this rhetorical example, he appeals to the minutes of the council of Nicaea One, did you catch that? There are no minutes of Nicaea One. There’s no minutes of Nicaea One, there’s no minutes of Constantinople One. The first minutes that we have from an ecumenical council was from the Council of Ephesus. We don’t know if there were any minutes from Nicaea One or Constantinople One for that matter. There probably weren’t. I mean, if there were, they just are not extant, we don’t have any records of them. So I don’t know what he’s talking about when he speaks of the minutes. And he seemed very confident that Abba Paphnutius said these things at the council, I also don’t know where he got that from because-
Trent Horn:
It had to be, I mean, it could be hagiography. There’s always traditions. There is a tradition that the same as Saint Nicholas punching out Arius at Nicaea, we’re all really confident of that, but don’t have great historical evidence I know people are going to throw tomatoes at me, but I’m actually, I was thinking about a book, because I wrote that book, What the Saints Never Said, I was thinking to have everyone come out with pitchforks so I was going to write a book called, What the Saints Never Did. We’ll see. I still have a thought on that. But yeah, once again, they’re both valid disciplines and in the west even, we’re tolerant of that, that Orthodox, Anglican we allow and grant for married clergy when it is appropriate, when it serves the good of the church.
Trent Horn:
All right. I think this is the last section that I have where Father Josiah talks about how could we come together? And this is the important thing for us talk about. I mean, of all the Christian denominations in the world, but you would think the best hope we have are with those who are closest to us doctrinally and liturgically and sacramentally and apostolically for union. This should be the one we should really aim for with all our heart, mind and soul. Is this something we can? I believe it is something we can do. We’ll hear Father Josiah’s thoughts and Michael and I will offer our thoughts.
Father Josiah Trenham:
But you see that these Lists, they’re… You would never find a list like this against the Jews or the Muslims.
Trent Horn:
Oh, by the way, the List he’s talking about are the Byzantine Lists. These lists of prohibitions of the east have with the west. Michael, I know you actually did a whole show on the Byzantine List. So I commend our listeners, go check that out that you’ve covered them. So go to Reason and Theology to see more about these, but that’s what he’s referring to.
Father Josiah Trenham:
But this is an inter-family squabble. This is… Even though the Lists are strong and they have very many important things. Where the very fact that they exist, show that we have a lot of history and we’re really not happy about walking away from each other. We’re really not happy about that. And we’re going to have a little fight about it and we’re going to fuss. I’ve often thought what if something did happen? What if Pope John Paul II, many times read the Nicene Creed in public without the filioque. He did it. And he liked doing that. What if something happened where the popes would give up. The Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco is a friend of mine. His name’s Salvatore Cordileone, great man. He was from San Diego, was assistant Bishop down there. He’s a Canonist from Rome. He studied in Rome and a great lover of orthodoxy.
Father Josiah Trenham:
He is a great lover of orthodoxy. And I have heard him in public say many times that he believes the Catholic church should cease saying any council that they’ve held after the Great Schism is ecumenical, because the Catholics kept on suggesting that their councils were the councils of the whole church even though we weren’t there. He says, we should stop that. We should say they’re all local councils and not for discussion. If we could get… If bishops like that were talking and they said, you know what? That became the position of the Catholic church. They’re going to relegate all post-schism dogmatic decrees to the trash bin and come back based upon the faith of the first millennium and deal with us. That would be a mighty miracle. That would be an incredible miracle. Please God may that happen. That would be fantastic. But still, practically speaking, what do you do the next day?
Father Josiah Trenham:
This is what I thought, let’s say it happened and we could all announce in our churches that the Catholic church and the Orthodox church had been reunited after a thousand years of separation. Could any of us actually go to church? Technically we could, but could any of us actually go to church in a Catholic parish? I think in where I live, our people just couldn’t stomach it. They just couldn’t stomach. They would go there and they wouldn’t recognize where they were. They would simply not feel that they could do it. It would just be torture for them. It would have to be not just a decree from the top, but a renovation, a reincorporation of traditional Orthodox Catholic life with regards to worship and prayer and all the things that we know of reverence in the church. May God bless our interactions with the Catholics and make something… Surprise us with something great.
Trent Horn:
A major point and then a minor point and I’m eager for your thoughts. The major point being, if we ask the Orthodox to become Catholic, we’re not asking them to become Roman Catholic. We’re not asking them to become Latin Catholics. We’re just asking, look, just… All we’d be saying is just affirm, do what the Ruthenian Catholic church did at the Treaty of Brest in the 16th century to come into communion, but you would retain the liturgy. You would essentially be a separate right within the church. I’m not asking you to suddenly go to a church where they’re playing guitars and wearing flip flops or what have you. So I guess that was the major reaction that I had from that.
Trent Horn:
The minor point, I don’t know what he was referring to with Archbishop Cordileone. We can’t throw out the post-schism councils and all of their infallible definitions, just another Council of Trent, Lateran, maybe what he meant, I don’t know, maybe just what he meant was we just don’t give them that term. We have a particular term for the first seven and we recognize they’re special because it was before the schism, but we can’t throw out their authority, but we can recognize the specialness of the first seven. So that would be the minor point. But the major point is, and I think that’s a hindrance to the union is, we’re not asking you to become Latin, right?
Michael Lofton:
Yeah, I agree. I don’t know what the Archbishop said, so I can’t comment on what he said specifically, but what Father Josiah said about the Archbishop, I can comment on that. It is absolutely impossible for the Catholic church to throw out any of the post-schism ecumenical councils teachings that are definitive teachings on matters of doctrine. Absolutely impossible. For us to throw away these definitive teachings is for us to say that either we lost a universal teaching authority, which we believe is part of the constitution of the church so it can’t be lost.
Michael Lofton:
Either we lost it or there is no teaching authority that is universal, which is also not compatible because we believe it came from Christ and as part of the constitution of the church. That’s a position that’s unacceptable to Catholics. There’s absolutely no way that we could ever or say that some Catholics can believe this is definitive and others don’t have to believe it. Or that what we once thought was definitive is now no longer definitive if that’s up for grabs, Nicene is up for grabs, everything’s up for grabs, because there is no universal teaching authority.
Michael Lofton:
But what I think is going on is, yes, the disciplinary would not apply to the east and the way in which we formulate our doctrinal teachings would not apply. So we use the term transubstantiation to speak about the mystery of the Eucharist. Well, they would need to affirm the proposition, what we’re actually teaching in substance, but they wouldn’t have to use the term in the way in which we express it. They don’t have to use terms, substance and accidents. As long as the meaning is the same.
Trent Horn:
Some of the Eastern Fathers used a term [foreign language 02:03:00], which roughly translated would be the English trans-elementation. So I mean, yeah. Or you could use a different word than purgatory. I mean the east has different words for all kinds of things. We have the sacrament of matrimony, they have the mystery of crowning. You have all of the… Confirmation versus crismation. You’re right. So what we could do is, in having union is say that these are the essential truths of our faith, but we can dialogue about how you articulate them. Here are the questions that are closed, defined [foreign language 02:03:42], they’re done, but how we articulate them, different secondary aspects of them, that’s something that we can talk about.
Trent Horn:
But I think that it’s just, look, for the [inaudible 02:03:52] and Orthodox to bring the Orthodox into communion with Rome, we’re not asking for the destruction of the beautiful treasures in the east. I think both you and I, Michael agree. I really like it a lot. I attend when I can, a Byzantine Catholic church here though it’s a bit of a drive from where we are. I think you guys have something similar where you live, it’s a beautiful treasure. We would just like it to be in closer communion with the church Christ established and there’s ways we can do that.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. I mean, personally, I’ve started a… I have a little private chapel where a priest from Texas is going to be coming out once a month. So I’ve started with his blessing and the blessing of the archdiocese, a chapel so that liturgies, Byzantine Divine Liturgies in communion with Rome can be served. So I’m right on board with some of these disciplinary and liturgical preferences. I’m right there with him. At the same time, I’m not going to condemn Latin brethren and say that they are somehow in sin or this is a major barrier between east and west.
Trent Horn:
I would never ask the east to give up the Divine Liturgy-
Michael Lofton:
Yeah, don’t.
Trent Horn:
… and I wouldn’t ask everyone in the west to give up the Mass of Paul VI or the Trinity Mass to say, there’s beauty in the diversity. Well, we had a good time reviewing this. Michael, where can people go to learn more about you and to see all the good work that you’re doing?
Michael Lofton:
Reasonandtheology.com. And of course also just go to YouTube type in reason and theology and you’ll see the YouTube channel.
Trent Horn:
Alrighty, sir. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Michael. I hope you all have a very blessed day.
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon Page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.