Why shouldn't I become Eastern Orthodox?

[Kiliann]

Hi all – sorry if the topic title feels a little clickbaity, it’s just a genuine question I’ve had bouncing around in my mind for the last six months or so. For background, I’m a college student born and raised Protestant, but I’ve been attending an Anglican church for the last year and have been investigating Catholicism a little longer than that.

Pretty much the only reason I’m not in RCIA right now is that I’m really struggling with understanding why Christ’s words to Peter and the Church history that follows shortly afterward mean the Papacy that we see today is what Christ meant to establish. Does the Pope have the kind of authority Rome claims he does, or does he not? Hence, I’m sort of in limbo between EO and RCC.

I understand the exegesis of the “on this rock” and “keys to the kingdom” passage, so that’s not really the issue; my main problem is that I don’t see a real adherence to the authority of Rome, nor do I see any Popes or bishops appealing to or referencing that authority, for at least the first few centuries of the Church. The Roman bishops don’t make it to most of the ecumenical councils (Rome sometimes isn’t even informed a council is happening, if I remember rightly?), and there’s not much in any early Church documents citing anything particularly different or authoritative regarding Rome – at least that I’ve found. Rome genuinely seems to be treated like a “first among equals.”

I’m very much an inexperienced historian, and I’m quite sure some of my sources for this are heavily biased (being written by Orthodox scholars), so I’d love to get the Catholic perspective on this. Why is Papal authority what Christ wanted for the Church today? Why shouldn’t I become Eastern Orthodox instead?

 

[Neithan]

Jesus told Peter to confirm the brethren (Luke 22:32). He built the church on the leadership of Peter, the Rock — He invented that name for him. First among equals, because there is no higher order than bishop left to lead the church; but the successor of Peter is the leader of that order.

A Catholic Answers tract here for some history: What the Early Church Believed: Peter as Pope | Catholic Answers

The Eastern Orthodox are an Apostolic Church. There is no urgency for a Roman Catholic to dissuade you from going there. God bless you.

 

[Minks]

How many Early Church records are housed within the Vatican?

How many are housed within the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or any other Church?

Have you ever heard that the Roman Catholic Church stole those documents from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries from other churches? Which ones? How?

If those Early Church records have always been within the Roman Catholic Church, doesn’t it seem logical that she is the original Church that Jesus Christ, Himself, founded?

 

[Ilkka]

I’ll answer very shortly.

Look up the schisms within the Orthodox churches. Some Orthodox don’t even allow other Orthodox to take part in the Divine Liturgy (Eucharist). For example, members of the patriarchate of Constantinopole cannot attend Divine Liturgy in the patriarchate of Moscow. The Orthodox church is not a single, united group and they don’t have any infallible doctrinal authority. A lot of excommunications in the Orthodox world.

Edit: forgot to add the part that the Orthodox haven’t any councils since they broke off the Catholic Church. They can’t have any councils because only the Pope can authorize a council and its declarations.

 

[J_Dudycha]

Kiliann,

I am also currently a Protestant (confessional Lutheran), but, as I dive deeper and deeper into church history, I’m leaning more and more towards Rome as the days go by. One of the things I’ve wrestled with is what you’re asking right now.

One resource which I found to be highly informative was an interview between Taylor Marshall and Tim Flanders, a former Protestant turned Orthodox who finally defected from Orthodoxy for Roman Catholicism. He, as a former orthodox, gives many insights into the disunity and problems he experienced within Orthodoxy, things which orthodox try to sweep under the rug. To find it, do a YouTube search for “Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Catholicism w Tim Flanders.” Tell a friend.

As to your “problem” with with there supposedly not being many early references to the primacy of Rome, what sources are you following ?? I’d refer you to Jimmy Akin’s book The Fathers Know Best, which is a hefty collection of independent, primary sources from the first few centuries of Christendom. I’ve been vetting these quotes & sources against the most scholarly resources I can find, and, I must say, they all check out; there is overwhelmingly strong evidence that the majority of the early church looked to Rome as a spiritual authority.

Beyond this, I look at all the schisms and disunity within orthodoxy. There is indeed hostility even between cultural branches within orthodoxy. It looks remarkably like Protestantism, I must say.

 

[Maximus1]

They also share a joint history Rome/ Constantinople, with, the same Saints, Council’s, etc, until the Schism. This seems like the time period you are focussed on.

 

[Bithynian]

Why shouldn’t I become Eastern Orthodox instead?

Slightly off-topic from the thrust of your main question.

I have several friends who are Eastern Orthodox, and we join together regularly for an ecumenical Bible study group wherein we also chat generally about church affairs. They consistently mentioned that one practical issue of conversion to EO is the availability of a suitable parish near to you. “Suitable”, in this context, meaning that the parish nourishes younger, Western converts who do not share the same ethnic heritage of the parish.

Some EO churches, such as the Antiochian Orthodox Church, heavily emphasise a missional theology. But many do not: for example, the Greek Orthodox Church in the US, which is in a state of significant decline due to demographic shifts. In the latter case, the parish life (outside of the Divine Liturgy) can largely be that of an ethnic institution or a cultural centre, which can be irrelevant and spiritually stagnant for those who are not of the dominant ethnic group (unless one is a Helleno/Slavophile!).

 

[1ke]

my main problem is that I don’t see a real adherence to the authority of Rome, nor do I see any Popes or bishops appealing to or referencing that authority, for at least the first few centuries of the Church.

I don’t really think you can read the Church Fathers and NOT see the authority of Rome. Even in the first three centuries. Here’s a short sampling:

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope | Catholic Answers Tract

The Roman bishops don’t make it to most of the ecumenical councils

Due to political and geographical constraints on travel.

Rome sometimes isn’t even informed a council is happening, if I remember rightly?

If the Pope did not at a minimum confirm the council, it isn’t an ecumenical council.

There were many regional councils, these are not the same thing as an ecumenical council.

 

[ziapueblo]

How many are housed within the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Many Eastern Orthodox monasteries actually. Saint Catherine’s Monastery, which is on the foot of Mt Sinai for example.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

One of overlooked sources on Papacy and inerrancy of Roman Church from East is George the Hagiorite.

George the Hagiorite was Monk in Georgia, he had no relations with West and came to Constantinople to ask Emperor and Ecumenical Patriarch for autocephaly of Georgia. He was there to ask favor from them- yet when he found out that they opposed the Pope of Rome (whom he did not need to care about from his position), he professed inerrancy of Rome. This was during when Great Schism escalated- around 1060’s. If this great Eastern Saint, not even canonized in Catholic Church (but canonized in Georgian Orthodox Church), professed it, how come anyone can deny inerrancy of Rome? What reason would he have to believe Rome was inerrant? He did not even belong to Rome’s Patriarchal Jurisdiction neither was supporting them wise for him as that was opposing Emperor… yet he did it.

It was said about Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria who excommunicated Pope Leo that “in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope himself”.

Read Pope St. Gregory and how he views his power of binding and losing. St. Maximus the Confessor as well…

There are many, many proofs about Papacy and inerrancy of Rome at that. And then practical side to it is that disunity stemming from absence of central authority in Orthodox Church has very real consequences- disunity of the Church being the prime example… same as rise of Caesaropapism.

 

[Kiliann]

Due to political and geographical constraints on travel.

Oh, interesting, I didn’t know that! I guess I’ve been overcompensating in my EO-biased readings, since I don’t remember ever seeing that (there’s a lot more Catholic apologetics out there, so I’ve been going out of my way to find Orthodox sources, too.)

If the Pope did not at a minimum confirm the council, it isn’t an ecumenical council.

Also good to know; that definitely changes the way I’m seeing things.

 

[Kiliann]

when he found out that they opposed the Pope of Rome (whom he did not need to care about from his position), he professed inerrancy of Rome.

This is a really, really strong point in Rome’s favor. I’ve definitely seen a few things like this that seem really nonsensical if Rome didn’t have some kind of primacy.

I think one of the things I’ve been hung up on (which EO apologists also love to harp on quite a bit) are the times where the primacy of Rome really should have been acknowledged and then seemingly wasn’t. I don’t have the sources right in front of me, so I won’t dare try to pull vague “well, I’ve heard this…” arguments out or anything–but why aren’t the places Rome is mentioned or written to more… obviously elevated, I guess?

I’ve been reading early Church writings to and about Rome, and there never seem to be appeals to Rome’s authority specifically or any mention of Rome being any different from other bishops or authorities mentioned. Am I just reading the wrong sources, or is there an explanation for that?

 

[gohjedrek]

I would pose the question of what are your views on the filioque? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or both the Father and Son?

Eastern Orthodox follows the former while Catholics follow the latter.

As an anglican, I was myself pretty confused as to whether which to join, but the first thing that an eastern orthodox told me was to leave Protestantism altogether. I think that led me on the journey towards finding a faith filled with tradition.

If you are really into tradition, guessing since you are considering whether to join eastern orthodoxy, I think it be wise to visit the eastern catholic church, traditional latin mass or even the anglican ordinariate.

I found the anglican ordinariate to currently be the most friendly church so far, the mass is done entirely in vernacular (english) and it preserves the anglican heritage, whilst being a catholic church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would pose the question of what are your views on the filioque? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or both the Father and Son?

Eastern Orthodox follows the former while Catholics follow the latter.

Thing is, if you find Eastern Pre-Schism accounts, fact Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son was professed in the East same way as it was in the West. However Latin verb “proceeds” lead Greeks to believe that Latins believe Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son as two original principles, not in “through the Son” fashion as Latins believed it. Alexandrian tradition actually holds Filioque too (because in Coptic language, Latin phrase was correctly translated).

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Greetings @Kiliann:

We share a similar background. I was raised Baptist, then converted to Anglicanism in College, seeking a more traditional community after sensing the lack in my parent’s non-denominational mega-church. Anglicanism, for all of its beauty and rich history (especially for this Anglophile), simply could not compete with Apostolic Christianity and the vision of the Church as expressed by the Early Fathers. Once I had made it to that point the most difficult decision was the East vs. West debate…since I had more experience with the local Orthodox Churches in my area, I decided after two years of agonizing study that my feeble mind could not solve the thousand year dilemma of the Great Schism, and that a tradition has to be lived to be truly understood.

So I became Orthodox. Now I am in my fourth year of Orthodoxy and realizing I didn’t delve deeply enough into Catholicism before converting. Culturally I am a recovering WASP and have struggled quite heavily with the Eastern/Ethnic coloring of Orthodoxy in America. Truth be told, Gregorian Chant, Gothic Architecture, Benedictine monasticism and the simple beauty of the traditional (EF) Roman Rite tug at my heart and have made me reconsider my conversion as of late. All that said, the question remains: Where is God leading you?

Prayer and fasting are always a good start, then prayerful reading (lectio divina) of both sides, asking the Lord to lead you and illumine your path. These are the greatest recourse Christians have in times of trial. May I also recommend reading the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The Imitation of Christ, as well as the Lives of the Saints (both Eastern and Western)? This will give you a sense of the fruit of both traditions, for as our Saviour said, “You shall know them by your fruits.” As with any great decisions after the above, follow the inclination of your heart, because if you intellectually force yourself into something without your heart agreeing, there will be many sorrows and regrets, and the most important thing is that whether we choose Orthodoxy or Catholicism we keep Christ as the focus of our life and enter these traditions in the hope of growing in greater love, greater charity and greater union with Him.

May God bless and lead you to the Church of your salvation.

 

[George720]

Why shouldn’t I become Eastern Orthodox instead?

Because it will seriously intrude into your normal routine… You will be fasting Wednesdays and Fridays, and 40 days for lent and another 7 for Holy Week, (and other 40 day fasts too) and you will be getting a serious course in humility and denial of self, and the giving of Alms… You will be finding yourself ASKING for obediences rather than submitting to imposed authority… Your world will become inside out, upside down, and backwards… You won’t care if you get a virus or cancer… You will be denied outside responsibility for your failings… You will end up reading a lot of folks who are Saints who want you to know what they do, and who will tell you how to do so… You will find yourself going on spiritual pilgrimages to monasteries, mens’ and women’s… You might even end up entering a monastery, depending on your hunger for God…

I mean, there are a LOT of risks entering the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church… Other than that, we are pretty normal… Sort of… Biblically falling into the category of “a peculiar people”…

geo