Dr. Liccione Replies

Quite frankly I was rather surprised not only that Dr. Liccione actually replied so quickly to my post from earlier this afternoon, but even that he replied at all in his: Essence/energies: a reply to Benedict Seraphim. After all, this blog is a little-visited backwater of the blogosphere, and well, I figured he would figure such a reply would be a waste of his time and energies. I’ve only recently actually commented on his blog, so it’s not like I’m one to be taken notice of, such as a Perry or a Photios. And, given the gist of his reply, it’s even more of a mystery why he bothered at all.

All that said, however, he did me the courtesy of a response, and in his response it is clear that my earlier post left some things to be desired in terms of clarity. So here I will attempt to rectify that, and to further defend a bit what I said.

Dr. L characterizes my post as follows:

Benedict’s reaction is predictably negative, though not—to give him credit—nasty, which is what as I’ve become accustomed to from certain other quarters. His critique is two-pronged: ecclesiological and theological (where ‘theological’ means ‘pertaining to the doctrine about God’ as distinct from about the Church). Unfortunately, neither prong engages my actual argument.

As to the predictability of my negativity to his proposal Michael is unclear. Does he mean that it is predictably negative because in my replies to his original post I held to a negative appraisal of his proposal? Or, as is more likely, does he posit the predictability on the fact that like the other Orthodox who’ve responded to his proposal I’ve approached it negatively? Perhaps there’s something to the pervasively negative Orthodox response that Dr. Liccione is receiving? Could it be something more than just the purported pugnacity of online Orthodox? After all, if even the ever-irenic Fr. Stephen Freeman reacts in concert with the negativity of his co-religionists, then maybe there’s something to the negativity?

I, for one, think there is. Which is what my earlier post was intended to convey.

In any case, though I only meant to highlight that the differing ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches play into this debate–which differing ecclesiologies Dr. Liccione himself affirms–I did not intend to attempt a substantive critique of Dr. Michael’s proposal from said ecclesiological differences. It appears that Dr. Liccione and I simply differ over the extent to which Orthodox view the schism between Rome and the other ancient Patriarchates: as wholly pervasive and fundamental (thus the Mt. Athos reference) or as something much more ephemeral. He then caricatures the Bp Kallistos proverb–We know where the Church is, but not where it isn’t–as being inherently unable to say that Rome is not the church; after all if we can’t say where the Church isn’t, then we can’t say Rome, er, is there. But while Bp Kallistos’ proverbial expression is oft-utilized, particularly in apologetic or non-Orthodox Christian missional contexts, one doubts that even Bp Kallistos himself meant it as a full expression of Orthodox ecclesiology. Fr Stephen–who Dr. Liccione quotes as espousing the agnostic view–can speak for himself, but I hardly think the good Father would himself espouse the proverbial expression as a full statement of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Yes, it is true that you can get just about as many “Orthodox ecclesiologies” as there are online Orthodox, but that is hardly pertinent to Dr. Liccione’s implication that Orthodox ecclesiology is incoherent, or that the differing Orthodox views are fundamentally instead of superficially different. But in any case, this is beside the point: Whether or not Orthodoxy has a systematically unified ecclesiology (I think it does, but I do not think such an ecclesiology is had by way of systematic theologizing, but rather by unified liturgical askesis), Dr. L concedes the difference. He just doesn’t concede that that difference makes any difference on the DD front.

But it’s my critique from the theological vantage point where I can now see I was most confusing. I do too often invoke Dr. L’s name as the proponent for the position I critique, and that, in fairness to his two posts, is not the primary argument he makes in his post. He is right to call me on that infelicitous move. I do also invoke the names of frequent combox interlocutors to Dr. L’s site, and rather than his two posts, I had in mind, in making my critique, the comments of his co-religionists. I’ll leave it to Dr. L, or Jonathon Prejean, Michael Sullivan among others to assess whether my critique fits their own comments, and we can, perhaps, address that at another time.

That said, however, I do not think that my criticism is far of the mark to what Dr. Liccione is arguing, or at least what he has said that he is arguing in this most recent post replying to my earlier one. I’ll cite him on this point:

I was quite explicit that I was speaking about dogmas: Orthodox and Catholic dogmas. The notion of absolute divine simplicity (ADS) has been dogmatized by the Catholic Church; the essence/energies distinction, as expounded by St. Gregory Palamas, has been dogmatized by the Orthodox Church. St. Gregory also argued that God is simple. His considered position is not quite the same as that of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas; but his conclusion is quite similar to the dogma formally defined by the Catholic Church. Therefore, my attempt to harmonize the dogmas of EED and ADS in no way depends, as Benedict would have it, on any “presupposition” that natural theology has “authority over revealed theology,” a presupposition that no orthodox Catholic would dare make. It depends on analysis of the meaning and purport of the two dogmas in question. My argument was that the two are logically compatible, true, and instances of authentic DD.

Now, when you compare the comments in the comboxes to the two earlier posts of Dr. L’s that I link, I see little to disabuse me of my criticism. The Roman Catholic interlocutors critique the Orthodox essence/energies distinction from the standpoint of natural theology. Whether or not they intend to make the claim that natural theology trumps revealed theology, when the Orthodox commenters affirm again and again that their theology begins first with revelation, and when such Roman Catholic commenters critique the Orthodox metaphysic because it does not map on to reality, what else is one to think?

That said, let us look again at what Dr. L says above. Absolute divine simplicity is RC dogma. Essence/energies distinction is Orthodox dogma. St. Gregory Palamas (who espoused the essence/energies distinction) “also argued that God is simple.” (Note, by the way: the link to the St. Gregory cite is from my other blog. Don’t know if Dr. L knew this or not. But it’s interesting.) So, given this, one might get the impression that all that separates us on these points is some intransigent Orthodox. But Dr. L is honest enough to continue (emphasis added): “His [St. Gregory’s] considered position is not quite the same as that of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas; but his conclusion is quite similar to the dogma formally defined by the Catholic Church.”

Quite similar/not quite the same is precisely the gulf of difference I’m noting.  And, indeed, though I will quickly admit to abject ignorance of St. Thomas, I’ve read both St. Thomas and St. Gregory enough to know that they do not come to divine simplicity by the same route (or methodology), and, I’m persuaded, are radically different, even irreconcilably so, on ADS and EE.

Now, Dr. Liccione might well object to my putting arguments in his, er, blog, that are not his.  Guilty. I should have been more clear.  But I do not think he has falsified my critique.  Rather, my read of his latest is that he affirms it, albeit by way of the back door.

Now, as Dr. L and others can readily see from my blog here, I’m hardly as intelligent and educated as they.  I certainly don’t have the chops to keep up with them in diablogical debate.  I’m pretty much a redneck Kansan and Orthodox catechumen.  I can find my way around an argument, and, on odd Tuesdays and Saturdays can sometimes, if the planets are aligned, make an argument myself.   I’m happy to continue clarifying and responding as the need arises, but if they’re looking for a battle of the big boys, this boy is just a piker who enjoys some good debate.

I again thank Dr. L for his courteous response and hope he feels just as well done by from me.

4 thoughts on “Dr. Liccione Replies

  1. Benedict,
    I just wanted to comment on one small item. It’s the one I’m most familiar with regarding my own personal expertise in these matters and it centers on the following comments you made:
    You said:
    ” … I’m hardly as intelligent and educated as they. I certainly don’t have the chops to keep up with them in diablogical debate. I’m pretty much a redneck Kansan and Orthodox catechumen. I can find my way around an argument, and, on odd Tuesdays and Saturdays can sometimes, if the planets are aligned, make an argument myself. I’m happy to continue clarifying and responding as the need arises, but if they’re looking for a battle of the big boys, this boy is just a piker who enjoys some good debate.”

    Amen Brother!!! This describes me as well. However, I would take the whole ‘Big Boys’ idea one step further and say that the leaders of the RCC and EO (those Big Boys) are the ones that need to figure this stuff out. In Biblical terms, Peter needs to find a way to work things out with his brother Andrew.

  2. Pat:

    I absolutely agree: the bishops and patriarchs will ultimately be the agents making this reunion happen (assuming, of course, the work of the Holy Spirit).

    Although, that said, I also have in mind the role of the laity in the wake of Florence. So perhaps there’s something to be said for pikers like meself doing what I be doing.

    But ultimately, I just want Dr. L & Co. to have a means as to whether or not to consider using time and resources to respond to moi.

  3. Benedict Seraphim,

    I think sometimes it is a losing battle for us Orthodox to engage Rome on Ecclesiology. Not that they have the better argument (they don’t) but because it’s such apples vs. oranges. Indeed, I feel that many times our conversations viz. EO and RC are of the Apples and Oranges variety. I suppose I have an irenic reputation because I know how hard this stuff is. I honestly believe (because I believe that Orthodox ecclesiology is the truth) that it ultimately cannot be achieved by reason but is a gift of grace. Not contrary to reason, but not knowable apart from a heart given us by God.

    A good Holy Week and Pascha to you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s