- Catholic Lane - http://www.catholiclane.com -

The Road to Rome, Part III: Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy?

[1]This is the third of six articles relating the writer’s journey into the bosom of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Having succumbed to spiritual desolation following the rejection of his Adventist heritage, the young seeker investigates various Christian traditions, hoping to discover the Truth. Part I may be found here [2]; Part II here [3].

Here I come to the most difficult part of my series, for I have a deep and abiding love of our eastern Christian brethren.

Firstly, I state at the outset that I consider the Eastern Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church, whether they consider themselves to be or not – much in the same way as Pope John Paul II described them as being one lung alongside the lung of the Western Church.  They have valid sacraments, apostolic succession, and all other manner of elements that make them a valid Church and not merely an “ecclesial community.”

However, and it grieves me to say, given my sympathies for the Orthodox, that they have certain serious problems that lead me to reject their authority in favor of the Catholic Church.  These problems I describe below in brief. Before we continue, however, I must admit my lack of extensive knowledge of the Orthodox Church. I speak only from my own experience.  Humbly, let us proceed.

The first issue is the attitude of many Orthodox toward the Catholic Church, which in my experience can be described as reactionary and overly suspicious.  While the West views the Eastern Orthodox in a very sympathetic and conciliatory fashion, the East seem to view the West much in the same way that hardline Protestants might – as a bastion of error, as “papists”, heretics, the antichrist, and the like.  It is truly saddening, but in my experience, I have found it to be somewhat true. Catholic saints such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. John of the Cross are viewed as heretical figures overcome by imagination in their spiritual lives, and tainted by “Romanism”.  A truly sad thing, as the West views many of the great saints of Eastern Orthodoxy with admiration and a willingness to learn from their teachings.  While such figures as Photios and Gregory Palamas may still be viewed in a negative light, they are venerated in Eastern Catholic rites as saints.  Seraphim of Sarov, a truly remarkable and saintly figure, has become an object of much veneration and love amongst Catholics, and Catholic scholars are starting to truly acknowledge the profound writings and thought of such Eastern Orthodox saints as Symeon the New Theologian, Theophan the Recluse, Tikhon of Zadonsk, Nectarios of Aegina, Mother Maria Skobtsova, Nicodemus the Hagiorite, and many others.  But the East does not return the favor, instead acknowledging the greatest saints of the West to be, at best, in error and whose salvation is also at best uncertain.

Secondly, their is a certain sense of insularity in terms of ethnocentrism within the Orthodox Church – simply take note of the titles of Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, American Orthodox, and the like.  Once, when I inquired of an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine why he did not go to just any Orthodox church, he replied matter-of-factly that “We go where the Russians go” (for he is Russian).  But Catholics go where a Catholic Church is, whatever rite it may happen to fall under.  In other words, the catholic (universal) nature of the Church is lacking in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Thirdly, the objections against the papacy brought up by the Eastern Orthodox are incredibly difficult to overcome at first, for as I have noted, they too have apostolic succession.  So, I endeavored to dig through the Fathers and the history of the Church to find out who in fact was right.  I especially dug through the writings of the Eastern Fathers (the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor, and the like) to see what they in fact said.  The answer was seemingly unanimous, and in agreement with the Catholic Church.  This I could not ignore, despite any accusations of selective quote-mining that might occur from this point on.  Even St. John Chrysostom’s understanding of Matthew 16:18, which I have treated earlier, is in accord with the Catholic understanding of the Papacy and the chair of St. Peter.  I cannot ignore this.  Even Gregory Palamas states that St. Peter is “the leader of the apostles and foundation stone of the Church

Now, let me state here, somewhat controversially no doubt, that I consider the rift between the East and West to be based more in language, politics, and crimes on both sides, than on anything theological.  The filioque controversy is not something that is hard to overcome, as the statements of “proceeds from the Father through the Son” and “proceeds from the Father and the Son” mean essentially the same thing.  Though many disagree with me, I see no reason to separate the Body of Christ over this trifling semantic issue.

The Orthodox are part of the one Body of Christ, and are not separated brethren such as the Church holds the Protestants to be, though they are still held to be imperfectly united.  It is with ardent hope that I wish to live long enough to see the two churches unite once again.

A summation then as to the reasons I did not choose Eastern Orthodoxy:

That said, I wish also to highlight overwhelming positive aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy: