considered the Orthodox Church prior to converting to Catholicism.
I did too. I think everyone really searching would naturally reach this choice, Catholic or Orthodox.
In the essay, Akin says, “ The absence of a pope from Eastern Orthodoxy clearly had negative effects. With no pope to call or recognize ecumenical councils, the Orthodox haven’t had one in centuries. As Kallistos Ware virtually admits, there is no practical way for the Orthodox to call or agree upon an ecumenical council (cf.
The Orthodox Church , Penguin Books, 255–8).
The absence of a pope has led to a kind of magisterial paralysis on the part of the Orthodox,”
“Magisterial paralysis” is an interesting phrase to use. 16 years ago when I had to make my own choice, the same thought occurred to me at the time, and it might have been the overriding consideration for me. I couldn’t help thinking it a little weird that the Orthodox held to 7 ecumenical councils and the Catholic held to 21! That’s a dramatic divergence. So, my own internal question was, did the second millennium produce nothing worthy of an ecumenical council by the Orthodox? No heresies, schisms, nothing? Just stasis? In 787, All was settled that would ever need to be settled? Is that possible? Yes. Is it plausible? I didn’t think so.
But then again, I get the Orthodox reasoning—that type of truly ecumenical council can’t happen without all the bishops of the Sees, and they can’t have the bishop of Rome present. So in a sense, the Orthodox are insisting on tradition, and that’s not a terrible thing.
Also, the Orthodox make a good point that has been highlighted by the Catholic church’s sex abuse scandal. It’s not necessarily a good thing to have a too-top-heavy approach to juridical authority. Having only two divisions of magisterial authority, the local bishop and the universal bishop (of Rome) probably made the Catholic Church slow in its ability to react to scandal, when that scandal involved the bishop-level. As in, if only the pope can remove bishops from office, isn’t that more than a little impractical for a religion that is 1 billion strong?
Some Orthodox (like Ware) argue that there are really at least three magisterial levels—the local (bishop), the regional (patriarch) and the universal (pope). In truth, that probably makes much more sense for a massive (in terms of numbers) religion. In terms of practical, everyday governance, it makes a ton of sense to have a regional level of authority. Would McCarrick have persisted as long as he did if there were a regional authority to address it? The Catholic Church is gifted by having the universal pastor at its head, but it probably also suffers unnecessarily by having no regional level to help govern the 1B folks. Both sides have good points on this particular issue.
There’s more that could be said about the Akin essay. None of what he says is a slam-dunk argument against Orthodoxy, but nor should it be, right?
Unitatis redintegratio is what we’re supposed to be working on here, not continued division.
