Interesting to read this Andy, and I thank you for it. I have been thinking for a long time of writing a piece about why I became Orthodox, but I held back for the same reasons as you: I don't especially want to be arguing with my fellow Christians. It is hard to explain why you do a thing without sounding like you are attacking those who do otherwise.
Still - since you have written this, it gives me a chance to offer a personal Orthodox perspective. It is only mine, and I have only been Orthodox for five years, so take it as it is offered, in a spirit of brotherhood. I hope we would all like to see this schism healed one day. If God wills it, it shall be so!
Anyway, let me make a few points:
- Firstly, as other commenters have pointed out, you misunderstand the issue about which churches are 'in communion' with others, and what that means. You are presenting Orthodoxy as a squabbling nest of micro churches all arguing with each other and refusing communion to others, and this is not the case. There are (usually political) disagreements between some of the patriarchates, but the fact is that I can walk into any Orthodox church today and hear the same liturgy being sung. It will be sung in different languages, but it will be older by far than anything the Roman Church is offering; it has not changed in essence for over a thousand years. This is important.
- Secondly, Christians today make up over 30% of the world's population, while Muslims make up 25%.
- Thirdly, numbers are irrelevant anyway. Truth is what matters, and where we think we find it. Christ tells us more than once that few people will find the true Way. Bums on pews is not a measure of truth.
- Fourthly, please bear in mind that the Orthodox church has never taught that Catholics are all damned or any such nonsense like that, or indeed that their sacraments are in themselves invalid. The Roman branch of the church is regarded as a valid part of the Christian communion which has fallen into error.
- Fifthly, it's worth digging into the claim about numbers and its implications. You seem to be arguing that because there are more Catholics than anyone else, we should all join up with Rome in order to achieve unity. Leave aside for a minute the question of whether unity matters more than truth, and look at the history.
The fact of the matter is that it was the Roman branch of the church (which is not 'catholic', ie 'universal'; there is no church that can make that claim today) which slapped the decree of excommunication down on the altar of Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy one day in 1054. That is to say, it is the Roman Church which chose schism.
The Orthodox perspective on this is worth understanding, even if you don't agree with it. The Orthodox churches believe that one branch of the universal church - the Roman patriarchate - made indefensible power claims that the other churches could not support, broke with the agreed teaching of the first seven ecumenical councils (eg, on the filioque) and then went its own way. Since then, it has introduced any number of innovations, from Papal infallibility to the assumption and the immaculate conception, to the existence of purgatory, and to an Augustinian understanding of inherited sin.
All of this, combined with the vast accretion of political power to the Papacy, has itself precipitated endless schisms within the West. At one point there were two popes in competition with each other, endless heresies proliferated throughout the middle ages, and ultimately the Reformers broke with the Papacy over many of the same claims that offended the Orthodox. The Orthodox east sees the Roman-Protestant split as a quarrel within the Western Church. Take that claim seriously and we see that the Roman church is responsible for and endless proliferation of tens of thousands of churches worldwide.
All of this is leaving aside the fundamental differences in worldview - phronema - between east and west, especially over the nature of God. They are substantial enough that I found myself going east. This was not just because I reject the power claims of the Bishop of Rome, but also because when I sought mystical prayer, an unchanged liturgy and a church which does not give any of its bishops the power to change it at will, I found it in Orthodoxy.
Well, it looks like I just wrote that piece after all.
I offer this in a spirit of brotherhood. I don't claim for a moment that the Orthodox churches do not have plenty of serious problems, and I certainly don't claim either that Western churches contain no truth, beauty or wisdom. But this is how I understand matters.
Thank you for such a carefully-written, thorough, and brotherly reply. Quite a shame there is an ocean separating us, to prevent a discussion like this from taking place in person, perhaps over a pint! You know I love nothing better than a good old-fashioned Ecumenical Council in a bar-room.
I will say at the outset that I take every one of your contentions in the spirit of fraternity -- and that before getting granular, there is essentially one central reason why I have no choice but to be a Roman Catholic rather than an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It is this: I came to Christianity via a series of extremely gloomy secular ideologies, and in the early days of my conversion, I had found that my 'gas tank' for principled obscurity, apocalypticism, and darkness had totally run out by the time I found myself sprinting toward Christ. And so far as I can tell, the ideas that would lead a Westerner to refute the claims of the Church that made not only his own world, but the very architecture of his own psyche and soul, and to then veer East -- they are essentially dark, apocalyptic, despondency-inducing ideas. I am reminded of climate apocalypticism, or of some of the darker strains of revolutionary anarchist thought that take it as a foregone conclusion that it all must burn down; these are spiritually exhausting notions that, in becoming a Christian, I sought to overcome.
And it was from this perspective that I made a survey of Rome and all of her alleged errors. At the time, I was also in the habit of traveling far and wide, to all sorts of Orthodox Churches, where I quite often heard the word "schismatic" in reference to some of the neighboring Churches down the road. So it was that in the very season that I made a sort of audit of the Catholic Church -- I did very much get the impression that the various Orthodox Churches are, as you said, "a squabbling nest of micro-churches." And in many of these Churches, I saw many former Evangelical converts who seemed to harbor quintessentially American levels of anti-Catholicism -- which parlayed rather straightforwardly into some of what many Orthodox authorities and laypeople are in the habit of saying about the Roman Church. During this period, then, I was essentially on my own in ascertaining whether the claims regarding Rome's great errors were valid or not.
In attending dozens of Catholic Churches during that time, I tried my best to "judge the tree by its fruit." What I found was a blighted tree -- whose few healthy branches seemed to bear the very best fruit imaginable, which is a peculiar thing to find! I could have focused on the worst blight and recoiled from it; but I could not help but imagine that if that poor tree could be shaped up and set aright, it would lead immumerable souls to Christ, and therefore -- it very well could save the world.
The reason for this, especially as it contrasts with Orthodoxy, is simple: There is a dynamism in the very *structure* of the Latin Church. It is global and cosmopolitan, it has succeeded at evangelizing the world in a manner no other Church on earth has ever come close to -- and in my view, no other Church could rival it in these respects, chiefly because they lack the dynamic, potent, and clarifying structure that the Catholic Church has. Where other Churches have played the rearguard for centuries, Rome has stood as a tireless beacon of order, tradition, and above all -- profound mysticism. This has been true even in our most unfortunate eras. Where others say "maybe," she says "yes" or "no." She is a world unto herself; a common focal point for half of all who profess faith in Jesus Christ on earth. This should, as I understand it, count quite aptly on the score of whether the tree that has bore such fruit as this can be dubbed "good."
But when bringing this assessment and the questions contained within it back to my Orthodox brethren, I did not find so much as a breath of tolerance on these points -- I instead found an apocalypticism that made frequent appeals to how "narrow" the way to Truth is and forever will be. If I asked why the Orthodox failed to evangelize the world as efficaciously, I was reminded (quite fairly, I think) of constant attacks by the Muslims. If I asked why so many Orthodox teachings were so 'fuzzy,' and if it wouldn't be better if we had a clear hierarchy, I was looked at as if I were a madman. And if I raised any question about the various Liturgical forms that could be considered "proto-Liturgical" predecessors of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and if there wasn't room for a broader series of expressions of the Liturgy, it went over poorly. When finally I'd asked if a broader Liturgical stance might've allowed the Orthodox to evangelize more effectively -- I was essentially told to go to a Catholic Church.
Now, of course, filling the pews with "bums" for the sake of winning at a numbers game is, I would agree with any Orthodox Christian, a pointless or perhaps even malignant endeavor. But to me, there is a certain optimism etched into the notion that there could indeed be a balance between aimless ecumenism and schlerotic adherence to purer and purer expressions of the faith. No doubt, a great deal of the former exists in the Roman Church (look at the German Synodal Way!) -- and just as much of the latter exists in the East (look at the Old Believers!).
It is natural that there would be a tension between the "unchanged Liturgy" crowd and the "evangelize the world even if it's messy" crowd; this is why I can ultimately accept the idea that "there is one Church that breathes with two lungs, East and West." Because the way I see it, there is a deep, ancient, almost mystical discourse between these two sides, which are really akin to positive and negative sides of the same magnet. Contained within this, is a contradiction -- and I believe that in some way, it would be fair to characterize mysticism as contradictory. God is everywhere present, filling all things, and yet He is also nowhere. The Church must cling to the ancient, unchanged faith -- and yet she must somehow bring this faith to countless souls who are all unique and often come from completely alien worlds that have always stood at odds.
This is a challenge I look at seriously -- but the more that I look at it, the more I smile, for it is nothing if it is not an invitation to Sainthood. And by all I know of the lives of the various Saints -- there are often surprises in their biographies. How to proceed with this will likely not be nearly as straightforward as either side would suspect!
What I do quite fervently believe is that in the same way that the Orthodox Liturgy is beyond reproach (and I must say, the identical Liturgies that are in Communion with Rome are as well) -- our hierarchy, to include the Papacy, has allowed the Roman Church a sort of structure that succeeds brilliantly at our Great Commission to share the Gospel in a truly global manner. Is there a way to strike the perfect blend between these two things? If so, that is precisely what I am after -- and by all I can tell, if we are thinking with our "what will the results of this be in 1,000-years?" thinking caps on, the closest analogue to this would be found in traditionalist Catholicism, be it Latin or be it in the Byzantine Catholic traditions.
But perhaps I am wrong. As I said, I will admit that I have a hard time stomaching a lot of the "narrow way" kind of talk that Orthodox folk often talk -- which, while true, often seems overemphasized in an all-too-convenient way -- it just seems so utterly grim and sad. Perhaps I will get to where I can stand it, but if I do, it won't be before exhausting every conceivable defense of Rome, for if the Catholic Church can be made to thrive as a beacon of orthodox faith and Litrugy, countless souls would be saved. This dream keeps my heart pumping, and it doesn't seem dead yet -- in fact it seems we are just getting started.
At any rate, I've probably gone on for far too long here, but suffice it to say a few more volleys like this and we'll have this whole schism thing done and dusted by Monday!
Thanks for the reply! It is an excellent conversation which would be much better had around a fire. Perhaps in June!
Just to a few of your points that seem worthy of an attempted response, this one really leaps out at me:
'I came to Christianity via a series of extremely gloomy secular ideologies, and in the early days of my conversion, I had found that my 'gas tank' for principled obscurity, apocalypticism, and darkness had totally run out by the time I found myself sprinting toward Christ. And so far as I can tell, the ideas that would lead a Westerner to refute the claims of the Church that made not only his own world, but the very architecture of his own psyche and soul, and to then veer East -- they are essentially dark, apocalyptic, despondency-inducing ideas. I am reminded of climate apocalypticism, or of some of the darker strains of revolutionary anarchist thought that take it as a foregone conclusion that it all must burn down; these are spiritually exhausting notions that, in becoming a Christian, I sought to overcome.'
What an interesting perspective - so similar to mine, and yet with a different conclusion. I also came to Christ (or rather, he came to me) via those gloomy, apocalyptic secular ideologies. When I went digging around Catholic Ireland for answers, I found anaemic church services, worldly ideologies, exhausted people, enfeebled lectures ... none of which is to criticise any of my Catholic friends, who are very devout. But the church seemed like a shell. When I found Orthodoxy, in contrast, I found the joy of Christ. I can't imagine what these 'despondency-inducing ideas' you found could be. I found the hesychastic tradition, the beauty of the liturgy and much more.
I wonder how much of this is due to our different nations. Orthodoxy in America, I think, is very convert heavy, and many of those converts are young former protestants. There seem to be a lot of 'Orthobros', who can be very heavy on the apocalypticism, and on the strictness. I'm only speaking from hearsay, having not experienced this. My church is mostly full of Eastern European families, and so there is a different vibe', as it were. All sorts of things can affect our first impressions, of course, including our local church and priest.
I do accept that there is an unworldliness in Orthodoxy that is not found in the Catholic West. That is part of the point - and, for me, the attraction, because I see that in the Gospels too. As another commenter has said, below, when it comes to 'evangelism', the Orthodox can be seen as a 'finders church.' We're not much into the so-called 'great commission.' The Word is preached through behaviour - being Christian in the world - as much as it is by knocking on doors.
It's also worth pointing out that I can walk into any Orthodox church on Earth and commune at the cup. None of these supposed 'schisms' really exist in the mind of ordinary folk. And as I said before, I see more squabbling going on in the Catholic communion at the moment than I do in the East. At least we don't have to fight over whether we like our Top Bishop, or which rite we prefer. This allows me at least to concentrate on the hard-enough business of actually trying to be a Christian, rather than on the politics of the Church.
The notion of 'fuzzy teachings' is one of the key differences in understanding between East and West, I think. The Western mind - including mine - likes answers, definitions and clear lines. The eastern mind is more content to say 'it's a mystery' at some necessary points. Orthodox theology tends much more towards the apophatic than the cataphatic. We agree on the Creed, and several other things. Beyond that, there is no need for a Magisterium in which our Top Bishop defines everything about everything for us. The Spirit, we hope, will do so as we practice. What is the nature of life after death? In all honesty, we don't rightly know - but then, it doesn't much matter. What matters is how we are to live now, on this side of the grave. God will sort out the rest!
I am glad you have found a profound mysticism in the Catholic Church of the present day. I was unable to find it when I looked. Maybe that was my fault. I hope that it flourishes. Where we certainly do agree is that East and West should feed from and bounce off and influences each other, with neither needing to disappear, be defeated or defeat the other 'side.' There are no 'sides', I think, just a very old family squabble. Families are like that.
We shall discuss this further over a drink soon, I hope!
Another great reply -- particularly the note you conclude on; "Where we certainly do agree is that East and West should feed from and bounce off and influence each other, with neither needing to disappear, be defeated or defeat the other 'side.' There are no 'sides', I think, just a very old family squabble. Families are like that." I very heartily agree with this.
I do suspect the different conclusions you and I have arrived at have quite a lot to do with living in such different countries. Robust Catholic culture, complete with an extraordinarily rich Liturgy and profound mystical depth, is not especially hard to find in the USA. There are over 620 "TLM's" in the US; and of the other ~16,000 Catholic Parishes, a sizable percentage of them offer a very robust and traditional Novus Ordo, of the sort that basically mirrors the ancient Liturgy of Saint James. By all I understand of Catholicism in Ireland (and I see a similar thing in Canada as well) -- these expressions of Catholic culture are far more marginal and obscure. I have no idea what the reason for this is, but I can soundly say that if I were living in a country where the very best of Catholic culture and Liturgy was simply not to be found -- I might've gone Orthodox myself, as you did.
To be Orthodox in Ireland, as well, you are probably delivered from the strangest and worst of the problems among the American "Convertodox." Because we are a Protestant country, and at that, we've really become an Evangelical Protestant country, the default religious mode of many Americans is essentially warlike, hubristic, zealous, and on matters of Scripture and teaching -- often vaguely 'mechanical.' Apocalypticism is in the American religious DNA in a way that may be far less pronounced than it would be in other countries, and this has had very strange results in many Orthodox Parishes in America that I have visited or attended. Usually -- the best Eastern Churches I've attended have been those with the fewest converts; but often, these are also populated with fairly lukewarm "cradle Orthodox," or immigrants who speak no English. And so I found the whole thing complicated and mystifying as compared with our Catholic Latin Mass world.
Had I converted in Ireland, or Argentina, or Australia, etc -- I feel fairly certain I would've had a profoundly different sort of experience. These are differences that would be fascinating to explore at greater length somehow; perhaps by some kind of an offline, face-to-face event.
Unfortunately, Keturah and I are quite unlikely to be present at the event in June this year, as she'll be more than eight months pregnant at the time, and traveling so far West is arduous and expensive. Instead, on the weekend of June 13th, we may have a regional event of our own for folks in the Northeastern USA. You are, of course, welcome to come here for that event. And more broadly, you are always welcome at our place in the Northern Adirondacks -- a vast wilderness region that, owing to its incredibly unique status as a "forever wild" park, you would no doubt find to be completely fascinating. You just might fall in love with it.
Anyway, perhaps I will write you a letter soon. We hope to cross paths with you whenever possible!
Thanks Andy. Yes, we don't have so many 'convertodox' over here, though there are a growing number of converts, many of them young man, mostly serious and committed guys. I was godfather to one at his baptism in the sea last month. It was cold!
Catholicism in Ireland is of course very old indeed, and until the 1990s, Ireland was the most religious, and most Catholic, country in Western Europe. The collapse that has happened since has been for a number of complex reasons, one of the main ones being the network of abusive priests and institutions that has been uncovered, and which the Vatican is still playing down and dissembling about. This scandal is another reason it is hard to be a Catholic in modern Ireland.
I do have friends who go to a TLM mass - funnily enough, in the same church I attend, at a different time - so it is happening. But the problem is not a lack of masses, but a lack of enthusiasm, due to the aforementioned problems with the church itself.
I was taken to a TLM once - in Rome, appropriately. I found it interesting, but curiously unmoving. Perhaps the Latin was the problem. It seems strange having a liturgy in a dead language. I have only ever found the full, mystical depth of the Christian faith in Orthodoxy. Most of this, I think, is not due to questions about numbers, converts or whatever, but due to the theology. Theosis and hesychasm are perhaps the keys that open the door to the real depths of the practice. I am still swimming around on the surface of that, but I have met people who have dived down. It is quite something.
I'll be sorry not to see you in June, but New York sounds very tempting. Blessings to the new family member!
Paul, thank you so much for these wise, thoughtful replies. I am an American convert to Orthodoxy. My conversion happened 15 years ago via a trip to Ireland when I was a floundering Protestant. My husband and I stumbled upon many holy sites as we hiked the Kerry Way and then found ourselves on Valencia Island at St. Brendan’s Holy Well. We tried to find an active Catholic monastery in Ireland to visit, but we couldn’t swing it. A year later we found ourselves at a Russian Orthodox Monastery in the Puget Sound. The Abbot explained God’s love to me in a way that reached back to my simple childhood faith, then untouched by New Calvinism. That day I knew I had to find an Orthodox Parish to attend. Today we live by a Greek Orthodox women’s monastery and attend an Antiochian Parish. There are Russians and Ukrainians in our Parish and Orthodox of all ethnicities come to the monastery on pilgrimage. Our town is filled with growing Orthodox families who are engaged in our community. No Orthobros here. I am the descendant of European immigrants of all stripes. I have no native religious background. In the Orthodox Church that was brought to America by other immigrants, I have found peace with God, the communion of Saints, and a hospital for my soul.
I of course love my Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters and in no way believe them to be damned!
Help me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother.
Very much enjoyed reading this back and forth between you two. I find myself 'feeling' much more at peace with an orthodox understanding of things, however I have no orthodox church or the possibility of attending one here. So when I attend church, I attend a Catholic mass (I come from a Seventh Day Adventist background), I had my daughter baptized and confirmed into the catholic church. I don't attend often. I find myself much more akin to Wendel Berry! I find theology fascinating but I see it like philosophy. Really fun to think about but ultimately not all that important. The teaching of Jesus is simple. Love. And that is quite enough of a challenge for it to be the quest of my entire life. To embody love, which is my faith, and practice it constantly. To be a living sacrifice of love. To strive to understand love, to offer love, to love myself and to love others. I sing while I drive, I pray into the soil while I plant seedlings. So yeah, to me truth isn't actually that important. How could I possibly know the 'factual' truth of the divine, through the mouths of humans, or from my own thoughts. I have my mission, love, and I will strive imperfectly to fulfill it until my dying breath. It matters not at all to me which church I claim on Sundays.
I do however love a good theological discussion. And the lack of 'original sin' or the lack of a theology about the immaculate conception of Mary as found in orthodoxy feels quite right to me. When I see the matters which caused schisms, both between catholic and orthodox, or orthodox abd orthodx, or between catholic and protestant, and between the multitudes of protestants... it hurts my heart. This is not love. And we have only one command above all others. Love one another.
To your point on evangelizing the world, I want to add that Orthodox don’t see evangelizing as going out and spreading the word by door knocking or setting up a table or leaving flyers. You are supposed to be the living proof of believing in Jesus Christ and inspire others by your life/life’s works that would draw them to Christ. Like a vessel. (Sorry, I’ve only heard this spoken in Greece and in Greek, so this is my best translation of what they were getting at lol.)
Just thought I'd comment (and I definitely don't want to seem like *that guy* but just wanted to make this remark anyway) The Roman Rite as it was said prior to 1960s liturgical reforms pretty much dates back to the time of St. Gregory the Great and it's components are recognizable and pretty analogous to even before that (arguably Apostolic times). This has been demonstrated pretty well scholastically now, especially in some of the contemporary liturgy studies done post-council. The Novus Ordo is indeed an aberration from that liturgical tradition and the Orthodox are right to critique us for that; but the Roman Rite as it was said before shares just as much if not more antiquity than the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and Basil. When I walk into the TLM, I'm walking into the liturgy that evangelized not only the entire Western World but also much of Africa and even the far reaches of Asia. I'm walking into the liturgy that shaped some of the most holy saints this side of Heaven. Again, not posting this to debate or seem obnoxious, just to point out that Roman Catholics sit on a vast liturgical treasure that we are unfortunately persecuting and trying to cover up.
Sam, your point is well taken -- my only question about the Novus Ordo is which of them are abberations and which are not. Done correctly, they can resemble the quite ancient Liturgy of Saint James, and in these cases I find them beyond reproach. Done poorly, if course, they are a curse. Thank God in the Churches I've visited this year, I am seeing fewer and fewer "bad Novus Ordos."
Respectfully disagree. The substance of the Novus Ordo must be reformed; liturgical scholarship has demonstrated that it is an aberration from the perennial liturgical tradition of the West. Dr. Peter Kwasnieski has actually placed the nail in the coffin with his recent publication "Close the Workshop".
Well written! I pray for unity and am a hybrid of this, as my mother was Roman Catholic and my father was Russian Orthodox. I was raised Catholic, but experienced the Orthodox liturgy with my father's family. It is what Our Lord desires, as you stated from scripture. One Faith, one Lord. Jesus prayed that all may be one. If we all were able to look past the politics that drove the original schism, we would be able to see that we are all brothers and sisters. "Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter".
“And in closing, I will say that I very much pray that the One True Church could not really be a Church that comprises only 0.7% of the earth's population, or less — for the idea that this could be remotely true is painfully grim.” And yet, whenever the end draws nigh, it very well may be so, as Our Lady intimated. You’re right not to play the numbers game, important as they are in their own right.
I find it most interesting that the Latin Mass was the bridge for you in stepping away from orthodoxy. The Novus Ordo might just be an obstacle to many Orthodox, with its seeming lack of seriousness. As I found for decades, it only sufficed if I educated myself beyond it, kept my head down, and pondered what I knew to be happening (despite all appearances). That is a lot to ask of the average Catholic who seeks to be fed, not to white-knuckle himself through a service which more often than not insists on pretending it doesn’t know what it’s about.
I agree that schism is a cancer. Indifference over the status quo is toxic in and of itself. Heartfelt prayers for unity more than once a year might be a start to healing, and penance, penance, penance.
Thank you for your comment -- I agree, especially as goes penance.
I suppose the question about the Novus Ordo must be -- which Novus Ordo? I have seen all sorts, ranging from glorified iterations of a Jimmy Buffet concert to ethereal, otherworldly Masses that would draw a tear from the eye of even the most hard-boiled "trad." In our travels, I have found the latter to be more common that most commentators online seem to acknowledge. It is clear to me in visiting dozens and dozens of Parishes this year that things are changing with dramatic speed. The era of the progressive "boomer Priest" is mercifully drawing to a close. If anything, I think of that era as a collective penance... but that it is ending is hard to dispute if you spend much time with young seminarians, basically of whom are now very liturgically conservative, thank God.
The crucial thing is never to lose hope, for the loss of hope is often what causes schism, acedia, and anguish. By prayerfully clinging onto hope, I sincerely believe we bring a blessing on the Church.
I mean the Novus Ordo that gives the appearance of strictly reenacting the Last Supper, and seems to have the priest at the altar talking either to himself or the congregation. Yes, restoring ad orientem to worship is an essential step, but the prayers at the foot of the altar and other elements drive home the sacrificial elements that have otherwise been lost. Almost no one of my acquaintance (I’m speaking of the daily Mass crowd) even knew the Holy Mass was a Sacrifice; and on occasions when told, almost universally gave a “deer in the headlights” response as to what that meant.
The fact that the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the faith, does not mean that every other Christian denomination is damned to hell. We serve a good and loving God who I (personally) cannot imagine would cast everyone aside whose doctrine was a little off. The church is first and foremost a heavenly institution. We are joining in with the church victorious (in heaven) when we worship. It’s a top-down institution with the top in heaven. Which denomination is most aligned with the heavenly church?
As an ordained Lutheran pastor, I found this interesting. Not only here, but also among many protestants, I see a desire for unity. I don’t doubt that the desire is a God-given yearning from the Holy Spirit, based upon scripture.
However, I also notice here (and elsewhere) a confusion about the nature of true spiritual unity, and what constitutes the “holy apostolic and catholic church.” Too many people seem to equate a physical administrative structure with unity. So here, Mr. Hickman, it seems to be that, for you, unity means that all Christians everywhere practice the same rites the same way; probably also under the auspices of the same administrative authority.
I don’t think that the unity of the Body of Christ, as taught in the Bible, means that we must all be part of the same earthly administrative unit, nor even that we must all worship in the same way. Instead, we must all follow the same Lord Jesus Christ, and receive the scriptures as His final word, and therefore our supreme spiritual authority, even if we interpret them differently in certain places.
I have spiritual unity with those who trust Jesus, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. In the same way, I have no true unity with those who reject Jesus, even if they are practicing members in my own local congregation, and agree with me about best practices in worship.
In short, I think you dream of something that is not really unity at all. I think true unity is demonstrated in our attitudes, as when, for instance, I rejoice that an orthodox congregation in my town grows, even while my own church does not. Unity does not require “sameness” in expression. In fact, I think true unity is better demonstrated when people of diverse backgrounds and worship forms affirm that they worship the same Lord Jesus, and are all brothers and sisters together in spite of their various differences.
Tom, you raise an interesting question. Perhaps the chief difference is that for Catholics, the sum total of what our Saints, Church Doctors, Popes, Bishops, and theologians have compiled governs our view of these matters. For example, a bit before A.D. 100, St Ignatius of Antioch made a strong case for the "Visible Church" being centered around a clear and visible hierarchy. And because we hold that Holy Tradition is equal to Holy Scripture (being that the former produced the latter), we have taken Saint Ignatius' views on the matter as being truthful and necessary.
I do not know the history precisely, but somewhere along the way, many Protestant groups stopped holding this Holy Tradition in an equal place alongside the Scripture that tradition produced. I'm not sure why, but it would explain why a less well-defined vision of what "church" could mean is not taught among Catholics.
Yes, Protestants do not hold church tradition as equal to scripture, although among many protestant groups (including my own), Christian tradition is definitely held in high regard as immensely valuable and important (just not equal to the Bible).
Part of the difference is found in the cause of the reformation itself. Luther, in his day, found a clear conflict between the conclusions of church hierarchy and scripture. He chose to stand with scripture and was excommunicated for it, igniting the reformation.
Most Protestants today believe that the true church of Jesus Christ is “invisible,” meaning only the Lord knows his own, and no visible earthly organization can lay exclusive claim to the title “the True Church.”
1. You mentioned having “spiritual unity with those who trust Jesus,” which prompts the question—what does it truly mean to trust Jesus?
I don’t doubt your good intentions, but specifics matter greatly. Jesus clearly teaches, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). To trust Christ genuinely involves obeying what He explicitly commands, not merely holding sincere feelings or good intentions.
Yet, within the Lutheran confessional tradition alone in the U.S., there are significant doctrinal contradictions:
• Some ordain women (ELCA, NALC); others forbid it (LCMS, WELS).
• Some permit same-sex marriage (ELCA); others strongly oppose it (LCMS, WELS, NALC).
• There are varying views on baptism (infant baptism common but credobaptism also practiced by some groups).
• Divergent teachings on divorce, remarriage, abortion, contraception, and IVF exist among groups.
All these pastors and denominations claim guidance by the same Bible and Holy Spirit, yet they contradict each other materially on serious matters impacting salvation. Scripture explicitly warns against confusion: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
2. Catholics do not demand uniformity in external rites. The Catholic Church embraces many rites—Maronite, Byzantine, Roman (Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass), among others—united by common doctrine and communion with Rome. What truly matters is unity in doctrine, as Scripture clearly emphasizes: “I appeal to you…that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Paul further emphasizes, “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Unity that allows contradictory doctrines isn’t genuine unity at all.
In charity and truth, unity must be rooted not in subjective interpretations but in the objective, apostolic teachings of Christ’s one Church.
Interesting. The Orthodox Church is the first church that has made me feel like I could possibly be Christian. I suppose this is mainly because their online missionary contingent (???? 😂) is able to meet me where I’m at, at least intellectually. I’m a long way from consistently attending any church or following a religious practice.
Before Orthodoxy was on my radar I thought I would have to be a Catholic if anything. Since my only experience with organized worship (I won’t even call it religion) is sparse, ugly, and cut off from tradition, I want the most ornate, messy, ancient, traditional, beautiful church I can find. Plus I have had an encounter with a saint that changed my life (though I have only recently started to think of it that way).
Anyway. Actually being a practicing Christian is still so far from my daily life that the details of what church probably don’t matter. Your numbers point might be relevant here as I personally know more Catholics than Orthodox. If any of them invited me to go to church with them, I would go. But they haven’t, and that is probably because the Catholics I know seem not particularly observant themselves.
Sadly, you're right -- many Catholics have descended into a lukewarm state. But I am confident that it will pass. There are more and more 'hotspots' of young, devout, serious Catholics, and they are thriving and spreading. I pray this continues!
I so agree with your heart for the unity Jesus prayed for us all in John 17!! I am also a
Catholic revert. Spent 35 years as a conservative Anglican. But I grew weary of the
Constant splitting off based on theology and the
Contortions that church would go through to “ prove” in their posted charts, their Apostolic succession. I have dear dear friends
Who are Orthodox but the sectarian/political nature of their history would never allow me to join them. As a conservative Anglican every time I travelled I found myself struggling to find a
Close-by parish aligned with my
confession. Whereas all I had to do was basically put a finger in a small Google spot and ask where the local Catholic Church was… and have
NO problem. This was a huge reason I returned home. Yes,yes we have our problems from the Curia on down. Our Diocese asks for funds even as they recently paid out millions in the sexual assault settlements….. The Vatican’s clear pressure to silence lovers of the Traditional Latin Mass ( for the record I grew up in this Pre-Vatican 2 world but have attended with joy my Novo Ordus parish ) is in my view heavy-handed…… Pope Francis obvious misunderstanding of the value of American capitalism ( yes even with all its faults)…I KNOW the Roman Church’s dirty laundry. But it has lived out its call to be “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”. Thank you Jesus
Nice reading this Andy, I think about the unity of the church a lot. I'm in an interesting position where I never really chose the Orthodox church through any intellectual filtering process. It was the first Christian church I ever entered outside of relatives funerals, and I found the heart of Christ in those I met there. It was like a world I didn't know existed, a version of Christianity that was so counter to my very secular shallow view of it. I just didn't look elsewhere, frankly. I felt myself at home and didn't try to see if there was another home out there that felt better.
I've had some very encouraging conversations with my priest about unity in the Church. There are efforts being made at various levels I believe. Apparently many Catholic seminarians are sent to Mt Athos each year to study from the elders and monks there. The doomsday narrow path perspective is not one I've encountered, thank God. While I do believe the path to Christ is narrow, I don't believe that path is fully contained by the Orthodox Church. Loved the post by the Lutheran pastor about unity between the faithful in those who truly set their heart and hope in Christ. My perspective is something of the same, and when I asked my priest if he considered Catholics or other denominations to be fully Christian, he said what I think is the correct answer is that it is not his place to judge. He often says in our catechumens classes that he hopes that we become Christians, first and foremost. Hope to be there for the next visit, and if you guys can make the train trek out here before your next set of travels we will be all the more honoured.
Your experiences more or less echo mine. Although I was never officially a catechumen, I was a serious inquirer at a Russian Orthodox parish over several years. I also spent the better part of two decades before then studying the liturgy and theology of the east, while adopting her prayers as my own, even as a Latin Rite Catholic.
When COVID occurred, as a person with multiple chronic illnesses and a poor immune system, it gave me opportunity to pause and reconsider the claims of both communions, as it were, from the outside. As with many strongly held opinions, I found that that the polemics surrounding them often don’t equate to reality, and that there was a fair amount of nuance one needed to firmly accept either church’s position (For example, that Pope Gregory the Great used the formulation of the filioque in his writings centuries before the Great Schism… whether or not he understood the filioque in the same manner of those who came after him is, however, a whole different question).
As time went on, I found less and less theological justification for becoming Orthodox. That doesn’t necessarily negate that for some, there might appear to be a liturgical or cultural component to their decision to cross the Bosphorus.
It is true that at the present time that the west, depending on your location, is a bit of a theological and liturgical mess. I chose to re-enter the Church through the Byzantine door rather than return to the Latin Rite - the Byzantine prayers are my prayers, her liturgy is my liturgy, and being of Slovak heritage, her culture is my culture. I attend Latin Rite liturgies as I have need, but there’s a lot of water under that bridge for me, including 15 years working as an organist and choir director and a decade with the traditionalists that came close to destroying my faith (indulge me as I again point to the polemics I mentioned above). I don’t think the Latin Rite is defective, though one can make the case that it is often poorly done.
I am keenly aware that not everyone has the ability to be “Orthodox in Union with Rome.” And, to be honest, I don’t know what I would have done if the Byzantine rite had not been available to me. But one thing is clear among the scriptures and fathers: We are called to be one. And true humility demands dealing fairly with the texts, accepting nuance, and acknowledging that not everything is black and white.
Really like the essay. Like you I am also Catholic, I am a cradle Roman but in high school drifted a bit and never was confirmed. After the military in university I found the Eastern Rites and quickly and happily was confirmed in the Byzantine rite. While in university I looked deeply at Orthodoxy and found it wanting for a couple of reasons. The schism seems more of a culture of schism than anything, the reason I write this is because we made union twice in the Middle Ages at two western councils (Lateran IV and Ferra Florence if I remember rightly) and when their prelates returned it was rejected by the people. Also upon Luther's revolt the Orthodox sent emissaries to ask if he wanted union with them without regard to his belief structures. The Orthodox likewise don't seem to be comfortable with how dependent they are on later Catholic thinking, what I mean here is the inclusion of the book of Revelation in the Bible, the idea of seven sacraments (mysteries), and the evolution of confession in the Middle Ages. As to Paul Kingsnorth's idea that the liturgy of John Chysostom's Divine Liturgy is older I dispute by my reading of history: I am not an expert but I have read that parts of Eucharist prayer 1 go back to the first century and were possibly what Peter himself said in Rome, Eucharistic prayer IV also goes back to the early centuries and was written by reconciled anti-pope. (I mean no disrespect to Paul Kingsnorth and deeply enjoy his writings.) Anyway great post really enjoyed it.
My understanding is that the Tridentine mass dates to the 16th century. The liturgy of St Basil the Great dates from the 4th century, and the liturgy of St John Chrysostom from the 6th. Elements of all of them, east and west, doubtless go back further. Not that age is a guarantee of truth, but it does indicate continuity.
The schism is really about both power and theology, as I understand it. The Roman bishop's claims to virtually absolute power have been controversial since at least the 8th century, and it was fundamentally this claim that precipitated both the schism with the Orthodox and the schism with the Reformers. All roads lead to the bishop of Rome! But if this were the only problem, I think it could have been solved by now - not least because Popes since JP2 have been openly acknowledging the problem with this claim, and have demonstrated some willingness to row back on it. At least they've stopped claiming to be Jesus's infallible mouthpiece on earth, which is a start ;-)
I do think the theology matters too. I often hear Catholics claiming there is not much difference theologically between east and west, but I've never heard this claim from the Orthodox. The essence-energy distinction is perhaps the key divide: without it, there is no theosis, and thus no Orthodox mysticism. There are also problems with Augustine's notions of original sin, and Aquinus's theology, none of which I am qualified to comment on, but I am aware of them. Essentially, Western theology is viewed as having become much too rationalist, but also as having led to incorrect teachings, such as that on the status of Mary, the existence of purgatory, etc.
With what you said above I agree mostly, as Lord Acton said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Indeed the Papacy has a riddled history that no Catholic can be proud of entirely. However it is hard to get over Matt 16: 18-19. Especially when those like St. Irenaeus and other church fathers do point to him as the prince of bishops. It is a little like denying the Real Presence in regards to John 6. One must tilt their head sideways and squint.
Generosity seems key to me which we all must have. As the Orthodox churches were once captured by the KGB so to now the Catholic Church seems in its upper hierarchy to be to aligned to woke mentalities. The East may haver to rescue the west.
Yet I do think we can be one, as Jesus prayed. The eastern rites of the Catholic Church show that small nuances can be allowed within the canopy of orthodox thinking. Thus the Maronites, Chaldeans, Malabar rites and etc all have minor deviations in theology. I think this is good because to be quite honest I cannot navigate some of these arguments for the life of me. I to am only an armchair theologian, and a hack at that.
To the criticism of the rationalistic Catholic Church: as Pope John Paul II said the church must breath through both lungs east and west, I will suggest it must think with both lobes right and left. No one cannot appreciate the splendor of the ancient eastern rites and their appeal to bodily worship. Admittedly the Traditional Roman rite has some to that. However at this juncture to not think that pope Paul IV speaking against birth control in the middle of the sexual revolution was too rationalistic seems odd. Sometimes we must think with hard reason. This is what gives the Catholic West from Augustine to Aquinas, McLuhan to Girard a massive corpus of thinking. I believe all Christendom is better with them.
Truly we most pray for unity, for our foes are at the gate. And indeed we must face them with Chesterton’s war and laughter.
Its an honor that you responded to me, pray for me and I will pray for you.
Thanks for the reply. I have to say, I have never been able to understand the claim that those words from Matthew's Gospel translate into 'the Bishop of Rome shall have absolute power.' They don't even mention the Bishop of Rome! I think myself that you have to turn your head sideways and squint to think that Jesus saying that to Peter means that the Roman Patriarchate is top church. It seems to me to be a simple power grab. Primus Inter Pares is one thing, but ...
But anyway - more broadly it sounds like we agree about the importance of coming together where we can, I would say. I've often thought of the left-right brain notion myself. It seems like a very good one. And I also feel very strongly that the East needs to rescue the West. And I think this may be happening as we speak.
Thanks for the conversation, I have appreciated it. I am learning plenty here.
What a beautifully written piece! I truly felt your brotherly love, which is something we should all share as Christians. I am Romanian Orthodox, but I attend a Greek Orthodox Church, and my husband is part of the Church of England, though he is not actively practicing.
I've often wondered how it is that we all pray for unity, yet as Orthodox Christians, we are told we should not pray in a Catholic Church. We can visit, but not pray. While I don’t consider myself a deeply educated Christian, I have a deep love for God and the church, as well as for people. It confuses me to be told that I cannot pray in a house of God simply because it is built by other Christians—whom I should view as my brothers and sisters. This stance doesn’t seem to promote the unity we all seek. That being told, I must admit that I do prefer our services: I love the mysticism that our church has to offer; but that could be the power of habit. Thank you for sharing this text.
I think it is of such massive importance that we go to each others' Churches! If I am among Orthodox friends, I am happy to attend their Liturgies with them -- I do not hesitate to do so. And likewise, I always hope to see them come with us to Mass. Many of them do!
Beautifully written. You’ve educated me about my fellow Christians today. ( Interesting, as I type this, I’m noticing that Apple does not offer to autofill the word Christian!)
Interesting to read this Andy, and I thank you for it. I have been thinking for a long time of writing a piece about why I became Orthodox, but I held back for the same reasons as you: I don't especially want to be arguing with my fellow Christians. It is hard to explain why you do a thing without sounding like you are attacking those who do otherwise.
Still - since you have written this, it gives me a chance to offer a personal Orthodox perspective. It is only mine, and I have only been Orthodox for five years, so take it as it is offered, in a spirit of brotherhood. I hope we would all like to see this schism healed one day. If God wills it, it shall be so!
Anyway, let me make a few points:
- Firstly, as other commenters have pointed out, you misunderstand the issue about which churches are 'in communion' with others, and what that means. You are presenting Orthodoxy as a squabbling nest of micro churches all arguing with each other and refusing communion to others, and this is not the case. There are (usually political) disagreements between some of the patriarchates, but the fact is that I can walk into any Orthodox church today and hear the same liturgy being sung. It will be sung in different languages, but it will be older by far than anything the Roman Church is offering; it has not changed in essence for over a thousand years. This is important.
- Secondly, Christians today make up over 30% of the world's population, while Muslims make up 25%.
- Thirdly, numbers are irrelevant anyway. Truth is what matters, and where we think we find it. Christ tells us more than once that few people will find the true Way. Bums on pews is not a measure of truth.
- Fourthly, please bear in mind that the Orthodox church has never taught that Catholics are all damned or any such nonsense like that, or indeed that their sacraments are in themselves invalid. The Roman branch of the church is regarded as a valid part of the Christian communion which has fallen into error.
- Fifthly, it's worth digging into the claim about numbers and its implications. You seem to be arguing that because there are more Catholics than anyone else, we should all join up with Rome in order to achieve unity. Leave aside for a minute the question of whether unity matters more than truth, and look at the history.
The fact of the matter is that it was the Roman branch of the church (which is not 'catholic', ie 'universal'; there is no church that can make that claim today) which slapped the decree of excommunication down on the altar of Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy one day in 1054. That is to say, it is the Roman Church which chose schism.
The Orthodox perspective on this is worth understanding, even if you don't agree with it. The Orthodox churches believe that one branch of the universal church - the Roman patriarchate - made indefensible power claims that the other churches could not support, broke with the agreed teaching of the first seven ecumenical councils (eg, on the filioque) and then went its own way. Since then, it has introduced any number of innovations, from Papal infallibility to the assumption and the immaculate conception, to the existence of purgatory, and to an Augustinian understanding of inherited sin.
All of this, combined with the vast accretion of political power to the Papacy, has itself precipitated endless schisms within the West. At one point there were two popes in competition with each other, endless heresies proliferated throughout the middle ages, and ultimately the Reformers broke with the Papacy over many of the same claims that offended the Orthodox. The Orthodox east sees the Roman-Protestant split as a quarrel within the Western Church. Take that claim seriously and we see that the Roman church is responsible for and endless proliferation of tens of thousands of churches worldwide.
All of this is leaving aside the fundamental differences in worldview - phronema - between east and west, especially over the nature of God. They are substantial enough that I found myself going east. This was not just because I reject the power claims of the Bishop of Rome, but also because when I sought mystical prayer, an unchanged liturgy and a church which does not give any of its bishops the power to change it at will, I found it in Orthodoxy.
Well, it looks like I just wrote that piece after all.
I offer this in a spirit of brotherhood. I don't claim for a moment that the Orthodox churches do not have plenty of serious problems, and I certainly don't claim either that Western churches contain no truth, beauty or wisdom. But this is how I understand matters.
Love to you and Keturah,
Paul
Paul,
Thank you for such a carefully-written, thorough, and brotherly reply. Quite a shame there is an ocean separating us, to prevent a discussion like this from taking place in person, perhaps over a pint! You know I love nothing better than a good old-fashioned Ecumenical Council in a bar-room.
I will say at the outset that I take every one of your contentions in the spirit of fraternity -- and that before getting granular, there is essentially one central reason why I have no choice but to be a Roman Catholic rather than an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It is this: I came to Christianity via a series of extremely gloomy secular ideologies, and in the early days of my conversion, I had found that my 'gas tank' for principled obscurity, apocalypticism, and darkness had totally run out by the time I found myself sprinting toward Christ. And so far as I can tell, the ideas that would lead a Westerner to refute the claims of the Church that made not only his own world, but the very architecture of his own psyche and soul, and to then veer East -- they are essentially dark, apocalyptic, despondency-inducing ideas. I am reminded of climate apocalypticism, or of some of the darker strains of revolutionary anarchist thought that take it as a foregone conclusion that it all must burn down; these are spiritually exhausting notions that, in becoming a Christian, I sought to overcome.
And it was from this perspective that I made a survey of Rome and all of her alleged errors. At the time, I was also in the habit of traveling far and wide, to all sorts of Orthodox Churches, where I quite often heard the word "schismatic" in reference to some of the neighboring Churches down the road. So it was that in the very season that I made a sort of audit of the Catholic Church -- I did very much get the impression that the various Orthodox Churches are, as you said, "a squabbling nest of micro-churches." And in many of these Churches, I saw many former Evangelical converts who seemed to harbor quintessentially American levels of anti-Catholicism -- which parlayed rather straightforwardly into some of what many Orthodox authorities and laypeople are in the habit of saying about the Roman Church. During this period, then, I was essentially on my own in ascertaining whether the claims regarding Rome's great errors were valid or not.
In attending dozens of Catholic Churches during that time, I tried my best to "judge the tree by its fruit." What I found was a blighted tree -- whose few healthy branches seemed to bear the very best fruit imaginable, which is a peculiar thing to find! I could have focused on the worst blight and recoiled from it; but I could not help but imagine that if that poor tree could be shaped up and set aright, it would lead immumerable souls to Christ, and therefore -- it very well could save the world.
The reason for this, especially as it contrasts with Orthodoxy, is simple: There is a dynamism in the very *structure* of the Latin Church. It is global and cosmopolitan, it has succeeded at evangelizing the world in a manner no other Church on earth has ever come close to -- and in my view, no other Church could rival it in these respects, chiefly because they lack the dynamic, potent, and clarifying structure that the Catholic Church has. Where other Churches have played the rearguard for centuries, Rome has stood as a tireless beacon of order, tradition, and above all -- profound mysticism. This has been true even in our most unfortunate eras. Where others say "maybe," she says "yes" or "no." She is a world unto herself; a common focal point for half of all who profess faith in Jesus Christ on earth. This should, as I understand it, count quite aptly on the score of whether the tree that has bore such fruit as this can be dubbed "good."
But when bringing this assessment and the questions contained within it back to my Orthodox brethren, I did not find so much as a breath of tolerance on these points -- I instead found an apocalypticism that made frequent appeals to how "narrow" the way to Truth is and forever will be. If I asked why the Orthodox failed to evangelize the world as efficaciously, I was reminded (quite fairly, I think) of constant attacks by the Muslims. If I asked why so many Orthodox teachings were so 'fuzzy,' and if it wouldn't be better if we had a clear hierarchy, I was looked at as if I were a madman. And if I raised any question about the various Liturgical forms that could be considered "proto-Liturgical" predecessors of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and if there wasn't room for a broader series of expressions of the Liturgy, it went over poorly. When finally I'd asked if a broader Liturgical stance might've allowed the Orthodox to evangelize more effectively -- I was essentially told to go to a Catholic Church.
Now, of course, filling the pews with "bums" for the sake of winning at a numbers game is, I would agree with any Orthodox Christian, a pointless or perhaps even malignant endeavor. But to me, there is a certain optimism etched into the notion that there could indeed be a balance between aimless ecumenism and schlerotic adherence to purer and purer expressions of the faith. No doubt, a great deal of the former exists in the Roman Church (look at the German Synodal Way!) -- and just as much of the latter exists in the East (look at the Old Believers!).
It is natural that there would be a tension between the "unchanged Liturgy" crowd and the "evangelize the world even if it's messy" crowd; this is why I can ultimately accept the idea that "there is one Church that breathes with two lungs, East and West." Because the way I see it, there is a deep, ancient, almost mystical discourse between these two sides, which are really akin to positive and negative sides of the same magnet. Contained within this, is a contradiction -- and I believe that in some way, it would be fair to characterize mysticism as contradictory. God is everywhere present, filling all things, and yet He is also nowhere. The Church must cling to the ancient, unchanged faith -- and yet she must somehow bring this faith to countless souls who are all unique and often come from completely alien worlds that have always stood at odds.
This is a challenge I look at seriously -- but the more that I look at it, the more I smile, for it is nothing if it is not an invitation to Sainthood. And by all I know of the lives of the various Saints -- there are often surprises in their biographies. How to proceed with this will likely not be nearly as straightforward as either side would suspect!
What I do quite fervently believe is that in the same way that the Orthodox Liturgy is beyond reproach (and I must say, the identical Liturgies that are in Communion with Rome are as well) -- our hierarchy, to include the Papacy, has allowed the Roman Church a sort of structure that succeeds brilliantly at our Great Commission to share the Gospel in a truly global manner. Is there a way to strike the perfect blend between these two things? If so, that is precisely what I am after -- and by all I can tell, if we are thinking with our "what will the results of this be in 1,000-years?" thinking caps on, the closest analogue to this would be found in traditionalist Catholicism, be it Latin or be it in the Byzantine Catholic traditions.
But perhaps I am wrong. As I said, I will admit that I have a hard time stomaching a lot of the "narrow way" kind of talk that Orthodox folk often talk -- which, while true, often seems overemphasized in an all-too-convenient way -- it just seems so utterly grim and sad. Perhaps I will get to where I can stand it, but if I do, it won't be before exhausting every conceivable defense of Rome, for if the Catholic Church can be made to thrive as a beacon of orthodox faith and Litrugy, countless souls would be saved. This dream keeps my heart pumping, and it doesn't seem dead yet -- in fact it seems we are just getting started.
At any rate, I've probably gone on for far too long here, but suffice it to say a few more volleys like this and we'll have this whole schism thing done and dusted by Monday!
God be with you and your family,
Andy Hickman
Thanks for the reply! It is an excellent conversation which would be much better had around a fire. Perhaps in June!
Just to a few of your points that seem worthy of an attempted response, this one really leaps out at me:
'I came to Christianity via a series of extremely gloomy secular ideologies, and in the early days of my conversion, I had found that my 'gas tank' for principled obscurity, apocalypticism, and darkness had totally run out by the time I found myself sprinting toward Christ. And so far as I can tell, the ideas that would lead a Westerner to refute the claims of the Church that made not only his own world, but the very architecture of his own psyche and soul, and to then veer East -- they are essentially dark, apocalyptic, despondency-inducing ideas. I am reminded of climate apocalypticism, or of some of the darker strains of revolutionary anarchist thought that take it as a foregone conclusion that it all must burn down; these are spiritually exhausting notions that, in becoming a Christian, I sought to overcome.'
What an interesting perspective - so similar to mine, and yet with a different conclusion. I also came to Christ (or rather, he came to me) via those gloomy, apocalyptic secular ideologies. When I went digging around Catholic Ireland for answers, I found anaemic church services, worldly ideologies, exhausted people, enfeebled lectures ... none of which is to criticise any of my Catholic friends, who are very devout. But the church seemed like a shell. When I found Orthodoxy, in contrast, I found the joy of Christ. I can't imagine what these 'despondency-inducing ideas' you found could be. I found the hesychastic tradition, the beauty of the liturgy and much more.
I wonder how much of this is due to our different nations. Orthodoxy in America, I think, is very convert heavy, and many of those converts are young former protestants. There seem to be a lot of 'Orthobros', who can be very heavy on the apocalypticism, and on the strictness. I'm only speaking from hearsay, having not experienced this. My church is mostly full of Eastern European families, and so there is a different vibe', as it were. All sorts of things can affect our first impressions, of course, including our local church and priest.
I do accept that there is an unworldliness in Orthodoxy that is not found in the Catholic West. That is part of the point - and, for me, the attraction, because I see that in the Gospels too. As another commenter has said, below, when it comes to 'evangelism', the Orthodox can be seen as a 'finders church.' We're not much into the so-called 'great commission.' The Word is preached through behaviour - being Christian in the world - as much as it is by knocking on doors.
It's also worth pointing out that I can walk into any Orthodox church on Earth and commune at the cup. None of these supposed 'schisms' really exist in the mind of ordinary folk. And as I said before, I see more squabbling going on in the Catholic communion at the moment than I do in the East. At least we don't have to fight over whether we like our Top Bishop, or which rite we prefer. This allows me at least to concentrate on the hard-enough business of actually trying to be a Christian, rather than on the politics of the Church.
The notion of 'fuzzy teachings' is one of the key differences in understanding between East and West, I think. The Western mind - including mine - likes answers, definitions and clear lines. The eastern mind is more content to say 'it's a mystery' at some necessary points. Orthodox theology tends much more towards the apophatic than the cataphatic. We agree on the Creed, and several other things. Beyond that, there is no need for a Magisterium in which our Top Bishop defines everything about everything for us. The Spirit, we hope, will do so as we practice. What is the nature of life after death? In all honesty, we don't rightly know - but then, it doesn't much matter. What matters is how we are to live now, on this side of the grave. God will sort out the rest!
I am glad you have found a profound mysticism in the Catholic Church of the present day. I was unable to find it when I looked. Maybe that was my fault. I hope that it flourishes. Where we certainly do agree is that East and West should feed from and bounce off and influences each other, with neither needing to disappear, be defeated or defeat the other 'side.' There are no 'sides', I think, just a very old family squabble. Families are like that.
We shall discuss this further over a drink soon, I hope!
Paul
Paul,
Another great reply -- particularly the note you conclude on; "Where we certainly do agree is that East and West should feed from and bounce off and influence each other, with neither needing to disappear, be defeated or defeat the other 'side.' There are no 'sides', I think, just a very old family squabble. Families are like that." I very heartily agree with this.
I do suspect the different conclusions you and I have arrived at have quite a lot to do with living in such different countries. Robust Catholic culture, complete with an extraordinarily rich Liturgy and profound mystical depth, is not especially hard to find in the USA. There are over 620 "TLM's" in the US; and of the other ~16,000 Catholic Parishes, a sizable percentage of them offer a very robust and traditional Novus Ordo, of the sort that basically mirrors the ancient Liturgy of Saint James. By all I understand of Catholicism in Ireland (and I see a similar thing in Canada as well) -- these expressions of Catholic culture are far more marginal and obscure. I have no idea what the reason for this is, but I can soundly say that if I were living in a country where the very best of Catholic culture and Liturgy was simply not to be found -- I might've gone Orthodox myself, as you did.
To be Orthodox in Ireland, as well, you are probably delivered from the strangest and worst of the problems among the American "Convertodox." Because we are a Protestant country, and at that, we've really become an Evangelical Protestant country, the default religious mode of many Americans is essentially warlike, hubristic, zealous, and on matters of Scripture and teaching -- often vaguely 'mechanical.' Apocalypticism is in the American religious DNA in a way that may be far less pronounced than it would be in other countries, and this has had very strange results in many Orthodox Parishes in America that I have visited or attended. Usually -- the best Eastern Churches I've attended have been those with the fewest converts; but often, these are also populated with fairly lukewarm "cradle Orthodox," or immigrants who speak no English. And so I found the whole thing complicated and mystifying as compared with our Catholic Latin Mass world.
Had I converted in Ireland, or Argentina, or Australia, etc -- I feel fairly certain I would've had a profoundly different sort of experience. These are differences that would be fascinating to explore at greater length somehow; perhaps by some kind of an offline, face-to-face event.
Unfortunately, Keturah and I are quite unlikely to be present at the event in June this year, as she'll be more than eight months pregnant at the time, and traveling so far West is arduous and expensive. Instead, on the weekend of June 13th, we may have a regional event of our own for folks in the Northeastern USA. You are, of course, welcome to come here for that event. And more broadly, you are always welcome at our place in the Northern Adirondacks -- a vast wilderness region that, owing to its incredibly unique status as a "forever wild" park, you would no doubt find to be completely fascinating. You just might fall in love with it.
Anyway, perhaps I will write you a letter soon. We hope to cross paths with you whenever possible!
God bless,
AMH
Thanks Andy. Yes, we don't have so many 'convertodox' over here, though there are a growing number of converts, many of them young man, mostly serious and committed guys. I was godfather to one at his baptism in the sea last month. It was cold!
Catholicism in Ireland is of course very old indeed, and until the 1990s, Ireland was the most religious, and most Catholic, country in Western Europe. The collapse that has happened since has been for a number of complex reasons, one of the main ones being the network of abusive priests and institutions that has been uncovered, and which the Vatican is still playing down and dissembling about. This scandal is another reason it is hard to be a Catholic in modern Ireland.
I do have friends who go to a TLM mass - funnily enough, in the same church I attend, at a different time - so it is happening. But the problem is not a lack of masses, but a lack of enthusiasm, due to the aforementioned problems with the church itself.
I was taken to a TLM once - in Rome, appropriately. I found it interesting, but curiously unmoving. Perhaps the Latin was the problem. It seems strange having a liturgy in a dead language. I have only ever found the full, mystical depth of the Christian faith in Orthodoxy. Most of this, I think, is not due to questions about numbers, converts or whatever, but due to the theology. Theosis and hesychasm are perhaps the keys that open the door to the real depths of the practice. I am still swimming around on the surface of that, but I have met people who have dived down. It is quite something.
I'll be sorry not to see you in June, but New York sounds very tempting. Blessings to the new family member!
Paul
Paul, thank you so much for these wise, thoughtful replies. I am an American convert to Orthodoxy. My conversion happened 15 years ago via a trip to Ireland when I was a floundering Protestant. My husband and I stumbled upon many holy sites as we hiked the Kerry Way and then found ourselves on Valencia Island at St. Brendan’s Holy Well. We tried to find an active Catholic monastery in Ireland to visit, but we couldn’t swing it. A year later we found ourselves at a Russian Orthodox Monastery in the Puget Sound. The Abbot explained God’s love to me in a way that reached back to my simple childhood faith, then untouched by New Calvinism. That day I knew I had to find an Orthodox Parish to attend. Today we live by a Greek Orthodox women’s monastery and attend an Antiochian Parish. There are Russians and Ukrainians in our Parish and Orthodox of all ethnicities come to the monastery on pilgrimage. Our town is filled with growing Orthodox families who are engaged in our community. No Orthobros here. I am the descendant of European immigrants of all stripes. I have no native religious background. In the Orthodox Church that was brought to America by other immigrants, I have found peace with God, the communion of Saints, and a hospital for my soul.
I of course love my Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters and in no way believe them to be damned!
Help me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother.
Blessings friends!
Very much enjoyed reading this back and forth between you two. I find myself 'feeling' much more at peace with an orthodox understanding of things, however I have no orthodox church or the possibility of attending one here. So when I attend church, I attend a Catholic mass (I come from a Seventh Day Adventist background), I had my daughter baptized and confirmed into the catholic church. I don't attend often. I find myself much more akin to Wendel Berry! I find theology fascinating but I see it like philosophy. Really fun to think about but ultimately not all that important. The teaching of Jesus is simple. Love. And that is quite enough of a challenge for it to be the quest of my entire life. To embody love, which is my faith, and practice it constantly. To be a living sacrifice of love. To strive to understand love, to offer love, to love myself and to love others. I sing while I drive, I pray into the soil while I plant seedlings. So yeah, to me truth isn't actually that important. How could I possibly know the 'factual' truth of the divine, through the mouths of humans, or from my own thoughts. I have my mission, love, and I will strive imperfectly to fulfill it until my dying breath. It matters not at all to me which church I claim on Sundays.
I do however love a good theological discussion. And the lack of 'original sin' or the lack of a theology about the immaculate conception of Mary as found in orthodoxy feels quite right to me. When I see the matters which caused schisms, both between catholic and orthodox, or orthodox abd orthodx, or between catholic and protestant, and between the multitudes of protestants... it hurts my heart. This is not love. And we have only one command above all others. Love one another.
To your point on evangelizing the world, I want to add that Orthodox don’t see evangelizing as going out and spreading the word by door knocking or setting up a table or leaving flyers. You are supposed to be the living proof of believing in Jesus Christ and inspire others by your life/life’s works that would draw them to Christ. Like a vessel. (Sorry, I’ve only heard this spoken in Greece and in Greek, so this is my best translation of what they were getting at lol.)
Just thought I'd comment (and I definitely don't want to seem like *that guy* but just wanted to make this remark anyway) The Roman Rite as it was said prior to 1960s liturgical reforms pretty much dates back to the time of St. Gregory the Great and it's components are recognizable and pretty analogous to even before that (arguably Apostolic times). This has been demonstrated pretty well scholastically now, especially in some of the contemporary liturgy studies done post-council. The Novus Ordo is indeed an aberration from that liturgical tradition and the Orthodox are right to critique us for that; but the Roman Rite as it was said before shares just as much if not more antiquity than the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and Basil. When I walk into the TLM, I'm walking into the liturgy that evangelized not only the entire Western World but also much of Africa and even the far reaches of Asia. I'm walking into the liturgy that shaped some of the most holy saints this side of Heaven. Again, not posting this to debate or seem obnoxious, just to point out that Roman Catholics sit on a vast liturgical treasure that we are unfortunately persecuting and trying to cover up.
Sam, your point is well taken -- my only question about the Novus Ordo is which of them are abberations and which are not. Done correctly, they can resemble the quite ancient Liturgy of Saint James, and in these cases I find them beyond reproach. Done poorly, if course, they are a curse. Thank God in the Churches I've visited this year, I am seeing fewer and fewer "bad Novus Ordos."
Respectfully disagree. The substance of the Novus Ordo must be reformed; liturgical scholarship has demonstrated that it is an aberration from the perennial liturgical tradition of the West. Dr. Peter Kwasnieski has actually placed the nail in the coffin with his recent publication "Close the Workshop".
Just wanted to vote “yes, please publish the reversion story.”
Seconded
And a third vote
Well written! I pray for unity and am a hybrid of this, as my mother was Roman Catholic and my father was Russian Orthodox. I was raised Catholic, but experienced the Orthodox liturgy with my father's family. It is what Our Lord desires, as you stated from scripture. One Faith, one Lord. Jesus prayed that all may be one. If we all were able to look past the politics that drove the original schism, we would be able to see that we are all brothers and sisters. "Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter".
“And in closing, I will say that I very much pray that the One True Church could not really be a Church that comprises only 0.7% of the earth's population, or less — for the idea that this could be remotely true is painfully grim.” And yet, whenever the end draws nigh, it very well may be so, as Our Lady intimated. You’re right not to play the numbers game, important as they are in their own right.
I find it most interesting that the Latin Mass was the bridge for you in stepping away from orthodoxy. The Novus Ordo might just be an obstacle to many Orthodox, with its seeming lack of seriousness. As I found for decades, it only sufficed if I educated myself beyond it, kept my head down, and pondered what I knew to be happening (despite all appearances). That is a lot to ask of the average Catholic who seeks to be fed, not to white-knuckle himself through a service which more often than not insists on pretending it doesn’t know what it’s about.
I agree that schism is a cancer. Indifference over the status quo is toxic in and of itself. Heartfelt prayers for unity more than once a year might be a start to healing, and penance, penance, penance.
Thank you for your comment -- I agree, especially as goes penance.
I suppose the question about the Novus Ordo must be -- which Novus Ordo? I have seen all sorts, ranging from glorified iterations of a Jimmy Buffet concert to ethereal, otherworldly Masses that would draw a tear from the eye of even the most hard-boiled "trad." In our travels, I have found the latter to be more common that most commentators online seem to acknowledge. It is clear to me in visiting dozens and dozens of Parishes this year that things are changing with dramatic speed. The era of the progressive "boomer Priest" is mercifully drawing to a close. If anything, I think of that era as a collective penance... but that it is ending is hard to dispute if you spend much time with young seminarians, basically of whom are now very liturgically conservative, thank God.
The crucial thing is never to lose hope, for the loss of hope is often what causes schism, acedia, and anguish. By prayerfully clinging onto hope, I sincerely believe we bring a blessing on the Church.
I mean the Novus Ordo that gives the appearance of strictly reenacting the Last Supper, and seems to have the priest at the altar talking either to himself or the congregation. Yes, restoring ad orientem to worship is an essential step, but the prayers at the foot of the altar and other elements drive home the sacrificial elements that have otherwise been lost. Almost no one of my acquaintance (I’m speaking of the daily Mass crowd) even knew the Holy Mass was a Sacrifice; and on occasions when told, almost universally gave a “deer in the headlights” response as to what that meant.
The fact that the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the faith, does not mean that every other Christian denomination is damned to hell. We serve a good and loving God who I (personally) cannot imagine would cast everyone aside whose doctrine was a little off. The church is first and foremost a heavenly institution. We are joining in with the church victorious (in heaven) when we worship. It’s a top-down institution with the top in heaven. Which denomination is most aligned with the heavenly church?
As an ordained Lutheran pastor, I found this interesting. Not only here, but also among many protestants, I see a desire for unity. I don’t doubt that the desire is a God-given yearning from the Holy Spirit, based upon scripture.
However, I also notice here (and elsewhere) a confusion about the nature of true spiritual unity, and what constitutes the “holy apostolic and catholic church.” Too many people seem to equate a physical administrative structure with unity. So here, Mr. Hickman, it seems to be that, for you, unity means that all Christians everywhere practice the same rites the same way; probably also under the auspices of the same administrative authority.
I don’t think that the unity of the Body of Christ, as taught in the Bible, means that we must all be part of the same earthly administrative unit, nor even that we must all worship in the same way. Instead, we must all follow the same Lord Jesus Christ, and receive the scriptures as His final word, and therefore our supreme spiritual authority, even if we interpret them differently in certain places.
I have spiritual unity with those who trust Jesus, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. In the same way, I have no true unity with those who reject Jesus, even if they are practicing members in my own local congregation, and agree with me about best practices in worship.
In short, I think you dream of something that is not really unity at all. I think true unity is demonstrated in our attitudes, as when, for instance, I rejoice that an orthodox congregation in my town grows, even while my own church does not. Unity does not require “sameness” in expression. In fact, I think true unity is better demonstrated when people of diverse backgrounds and worship forms affirm that they worship the same Lord Jesus, and are all brothers and sisters together in spite of their various differences.
Tom, you raise an interesting question. Perhaps the chief difference is that for Catholics, the sum total of what our Saints, Church Doctors, Popes, Bishops, and theologians have compiled governs our view of these matters. For example, a bit before A.D. 100, St Ignatius of Antioch made a strong case for the "Visible Church" being centered around a clear and visible hierarchy. And because we hold that Holy Tradition is equal to Holy Scripture (being that the former produced the latter), we have taken Saint Ignatius' views on the matter as being truthful and necessary.
I do not know the history precisely, but somewhere along the way, many Protestant groups stopped holding this Holy Tradition in an equal place alongside the Scripture that tradition produced. I'm not sure why, but it would explain why a less well-defined vision of what "church" could mean is not taught among Catholics.
Yes, Protestants do not hold church tradition as equal to scripture, although among many protestant groups (including my own), Christian tradition is definitely held in high regard as immensely valuable and important (just not equal to the Bible).
Part of the difference is found in the cause of the reformation itself. Luther, in his day, found a clear conflict between the conclusions of church hierarchy and scripture. He chose to stand with scripture and was excommunicated for it, igniting the reformation.
Most Protestants today believe that the true church of Jesus Christ is “invisible,” meaning only the Lord knows his own, and no visible earthly organization can lay exclusive claim to the title “the True Church.”
Hey Tom, a few thoughts:
1. You mentioned having “spiritual unity with those who trust Jesus,” which prompts the question—what does it truly mean to trust Jesus?
I don’t doubt your good intentions, but specifics matter greatly. Jesus clearly teaches, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). To trust Christ genuinely involves obeying what He explicitly commands, not merely holding sincere feelings or good intentions.
Yet, within the Lutheran confessional tradition alone in the U.S., there are significant doctrinal contradictions:
• Some ordain women (ELCA, NALC); others forbid it (LCMS, WELS).
• Some permit same-sex marriage (ELCA); others strongly oppose it (LCMS, WELS, NALC).
• There are varying views on baptism (infant baptism common but credobaptism also practiced by some groups).
• Divergent teachings on divorce, remarriage, abortion, contraception, and IVF exist among groups.
All these pastors and denominations claim guidance by the same Bible and Holy Spirit, yet they contradict each other materially on serious matters impacting salvation. Scripture explicitly warns against confusion: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
2. Catholics do not demand uniformity in external rites. The Catholic Church embraces many rites—Maronite, Byzantine, Roman (Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass), among others—united by common doctrine and communion with Rome. What truly matters is unity in doctrine, as Scripture clearly emphasizes: “I appeal to you…that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Paul further emphasizes, “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Unity that allows contradictory doctrines isn’t genuine unity at all.
In charity and truth, unity must be rooted not in subjective interpretations but in the objective, apostolic teachings of Christ’s one Church.
Interesting. The Orthodox Church is the first church that has made me feel like I could possibly be Christian. I suppose this is mainly because their online missionary contingent (???? 😂) is able to meet me where I’m at, at least intellectually. I’m a long way from consistently attending any church or following a religious practice.
Before Orthodoxy was on my radar I thought I would have to be a Catholic if anything. Since my only experience with organized worship (I won’t even call it religion) is sparse, ugly, and cut off from tradition, I want the most ornate, messy, ancient, traditional, beautiful church I can find. Plus I have had an encounter with a saint that changed my life (though I have only recently started to think of it that way).
Anyway. Actually being a practicing Christian is still so far from my daily life that the details of what church probably don’t matter. Your numbers point might be relevant here as I personally know more Catholics than Orthodox. If any of them invited me to go to church with them, I would go. But they haven’t, and that is probably because the Catholics I know seem not particularly observant themselves.
Sadly, you're right -- many Catholics have descended into a lukewarm state. But I am confident that it will pass. There are more and more 'hotspots' of young, devout, serious Catholics, and they are thriving and spreading. I pray this continues!
I so agree with your heart for the unity Jesus prayed for us all in John 17!! I am also a
Catholic revert. Spent 35 years as a conservative Anglican. But I grew weary of the
Constant splitting off based on theology and the
Contortions that church would go through to “ prove” in their posted charts, their Apostolic succession. I have dear dear friends
Who are Orthodox but the sectarian/political nature of their history would never allow me to join them. As a conservative Anglican every time I travelled I found myself struggling to find a
Close-by parish aligned with my
confession. Whereas all I had to do was basically put a finger in a small Google spot and ask where the local Catholic Church was… and have
NO problem. This was a huge reason I returned home. Yes,yes we have our problems from the Curia on down. Our Diocese asks for funds even as they recently paid out millions in the sexual assault settlements….. The Vatican’s clear pressure to silence lovers of the Traditional Latin Mass ( for the record I grew up in this Pre-Vatican 2 world but have attended with joy my Novo Ordus parish ) is in my view heavy-handed…… Pope Francis obvious misunderstanding of the value of American capitalism ( yes even with all its faults)…I KNOW the Roman Church’s dirty laundry. But it has lived out its call to be “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”. Thank you Jesus
Beautifully said! Thank God for the Church -- without it, I have no idea where I would be.
Nice reading this Andy, I think about the unity of the church a lot. I'm in an interesting position where I never really chose the Orthodox church through any intellectual filtering process. It was the first Christian church I ever entered outside of relatives funerals, and I found the heart of Christ in those I met there. It was like a world I didn't know existed, a version of Christianity that was so counter to my very secular shallow view of it. I just didn't look elsewhere, frankly. I felt myself at home and didn't try to see if there was another home out there that felt better.
I've had some very encouraging conversations with my priest about unity in the Church. There are efforts being made at various levels I believe. Apparently many Catholic seminarians are sent to Mt Athos each year to study from the elders and monks there. The doomsday narrow path perspective is not one I've encountered, thank God. While I do believe the path to Christ is narrow, I don't believe that path is fully contained by the Orthodox Church. Loved the post by the Lutheran pastor about unity between the faithful in those who truly set their heart and hope in Christ. My perspective is something of the same, and when I asked my priest if he considered Catholics or other denominations to be fully Christian, he said what I think is the correct answer is that it is not his place to judge. He often says in our catechumens classes that he hopes that we become Christians, first and foremost. Hope to be there for the next visit, and if you guys can make the train trek out here before your next set of travels we will be all the more honoured.
My conversion to Orthodoxy was also very organic. I am thankful to all those who brought Orthodoxy to America!
Your experiences more or less echo mine. Although I was never officially a catechumen, I was a serious inquirer at a Russian Orthodox parish over several years. I also spent the better part of two decades before then studying the liturgy and theology of the east, while adopting her prayers as my own, even as a Latin Rite Catholic.
When COVID occurred, as a person with multiple chronic illnesses and a poor immune system, it gave me opportunity to pause and reconsider the claims of both communions, as it were, from the outside. As with many strongly held opinions, I found that that the polemics surrounding them often don’t equate to reality, and that there was a fair amount of nuance one needed to firmly accept either church’s position (For example, that Pope Gregory the Great used the formulation of the filioque in his writings centuries before the Great Schism… whether or not he understood the filioque in the same manner of those who came after him is, however, a whole different question).
As time went on, I found less and less theological justification for becoming Orthodox. That doesn’t necessarily negate that for some, there might appear to be a liturgical or cultural component to their decision to cross the Bosphorus.
It is true that at the present time that the west, depending on your location, is a bit of a theological and liturgical mess. I chose to re-enter the Church through the Byzantine door rather than return to the Latin Rite - the Byzantine prayers are my prayers, her liturgy is my liturgy, and being of Slovak heritage, her culture is my culture. I attend Latin Rite liturgies as I have need, but there’s a lot of water under that bridge for me, including 15 years working as an organist and choir director and a decade with the traditionalists that came close to destroying my faith (indulge me as I again point to the polemics I mentioned above). I don’t think the Latin Rite is defective, though one can make the case that it is often poorly done.
I am keenly aware that not everyone has the ability to be “Orthodox in Union with Rome.” And, to be honest, I don’t know what I would have done if the Byzantine rite had not been available to me. But one thing is clear among the scriptures and fathers: We are called to be one. And true humility demands dealing fairly with the texts, accepting nuance, and acknowledging that not everything is black and white.
May God bless you and your family. May God bless his whole church and bring us closer together.
I think you ended well. Let there be no schisms within your house, among family and friends. More than that I dare not ask.
Really like the essay. Like you I am also Catholic, I am a cradle Roman but in high school drifted a bit and never was confirmed. After the military in university I found the Eastern Rites and quickly and happily was confirmed in the Byzantine rite. While in university I looked deeply at Orthodoxy and found it wanting for a couple of reasons. The schism seems more of a culture of schism than anything, the reason I write this is because we made union twice in the Middle Ages at two western councils (Lateran IV and Ferra Florence if I remember rightly) and when their prelates returned it was rejected by the people. Also upon Luther's revolt the Orthodox sent emissaries to ask if he wanted union with them without regard to his belief structures. The Orthodox likewise don't seem to be comfortable with how dependent they are on later Catholic thinking, what I mean here is the inclusion of the book of Revelation in the Bible, the idea of seven sacraments (mysteries), and the evolution of confession in the Middle Ages. As to Paul Kingsnorth's idea that the liturgy of John Chysostom's Divine Liturgy is older I dispute by my reading of history: I am not an expert but I have read that parts of Eucharist prayer 1 go back to the first century and were possibly what Peter himself said in Rome, Eucharistic prayer IV also goes back to the early centuries and was written by reconciled anti-pope. (I mean no disrespect to Paul Kingsnorth and deeply enjoy his writings.) Anyway great post really enjoyed it.
My understanding is that the Tridentine mass dates to the 16th century. The liturgy of St Basil the Great dates from the 4th century, and the liturgy of St John Chrysostom from the 6th. Elements of all of them, east and west, doubtless go back further. Not that age is a guarantee of truth, but it does indicate continuity.
The schism is really about both power and theology, as I understand it. The Roman bishop's claims to virtually absolute power have been controversial since at least the 8th century, and it was fundamentally this claim that precipitated both the schism with the Orthodox and the schism with the Reformers. All roads lead to the bishop of Rome! But if this were the only problem, I think it could have been solved by now - not least because Popes since JP2 have been openly acknowledging the problem with this claim, and have demonstrated some willingness to row back on it. At least they've stopped claiming to be Jesus's infallible mouthpiece on earth, which is a start ;-)
I do think the theology matters too. I often hear Catholics claiming there is not much difference theologically between east and west, but I've never heard this claim from the Orthodox. The essence-energy distinction is perhaps the key divide: without it, there is no theosis, and thus no Orthodox mysticism. There are also problems with Augustine's notions of original sin, and Aquinus's theology, none of which I am qualified to comment on, but I am aware of them. Essentially, Western theology is viewed as having become much too rationalist, but also as having led to incorrect teachings, such as that on the status of Mary, the existence of purgatory, etc.
Thanks for writing!
With what you said above I agree mostly, as Lord Acton said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Indeed the Papacy has a riddled history that no Catholic can be proud of entirely. However it is hard to get over Matt 16: 18-19. Especially when those like St. Irenaeus and other church fathers do point to him as the prince of bishops. It is a little like denying the Real Presence in regards to John 6. One must tilt their head sideways and squint.
Generosity seems key to me which we all must have. As the Orthodox churches were once captured by the KGB so to now the Catholic Church seems in its upper hierarchy to be to aligned to woke mentalities. The East may haver to rescue the west.
Yet I do think we can be one, as Jesus prayed. The eastern rites of the Catholic Church show that small nuances can be allowed within the canopy of orthodox thinking. Thus the Maronites, Chaldeans, Malabar rites and etc all have minor deviations in theology. I think this is good because to be quite honest I cannot navigate some of these arguments for the life of me. I to am only an armchair theologian, and a hack at that.
To the criticism of the rationalistic Catholic Church: as Pope John Paul II said the church must breath through both lungs east and west, I will suggest it must think with both lobes right and left. No one cannot appreciate the splendor of the ancient eastern rites and their appeal to bodily worship. Admittedly the Traditional Roman rite has some to that. However at this juncture to not think that pope Paul IV speaking against birth control in the middle of the sexual revolution was too rationalistic seems odd. Sometimes we must think with hard reason. This is what gives the Catholic West from Augustine to Aquinas, McLuhan to Girard a massive corpus of thinking. I believe all Christendom is better with them.
Truly we most pray for unity, for our foes are at the gate. And indeed we must face them with Chesterton’s war and laughter.
Its an honor that you responded to me, pray for me and I will pray for you.
Cheers, Douglas Burk
Thanks for the reply. I have to say, I have never been able to understand the claim that those words from Matthew's Gospel translate into 'the Bishop of Rome shall have absolute power.' They don't even mention the Bishop of Rome! I think myself that you have to turn your head sideways and squint to think that Jesus saying that to Peter means that the Roman Patriarchate is top church. It seems to me to be a simple power grab. Primus Inter Pares is one thing, but ...
But anyway - more broadly it sounds like we agree about the importance of coming together where we can, I would say. I've often thought of the left-right brain notion myself. It seems like a very good one. And I also feel very strongly that the East needs to rescue the West. And I think this may be happening as we speak.
Thanks for the conversation, I have appreciated it. I am learning plenty here.
So glad you posted this! Amen.
What a beautifully written piece! I truly felt your brotherly love, which is something we should all share as Christians. I am Romanian Orthodox, but I attend a Greek Orthodox Church, and my husband is part of the Church of England, though he is not actively practicing.
I've often wondered how it is that we all pray for unity, yet as Orthodox Christians, we are told we should not pray in a Catholic Church. We can visit, but not pray. While I don’t consider myself a deeply educated Christian, I have a deep love for God and the church, as well as for people. It confuses me to be told that I cannot pray in a house of God simply because it is built by other Christians—whom I should view as my brothers and sisters. This stance doesn’t seem to promote the unity we all seek. That being told, I must admit that I do prefer our services: I love the mysticism that our church has to offer; but that could be the power of habit. Thank you for sharing this text.
I think it is of such massive importance that we go to each others' Churches! If I am among Orthodox friends, I am happy to attend their Liturgies with them -- I do not hesitate to do so. And likewise, I always hope to see them come with us to Mass. Many of them do!
God Bless!
Forgive me, a sinner.
Beautifully written. You’ve educated me about my fellow Christians today. ( Interesting, as I type this, I’m noticing that Apple does not offer to autofill the word Christian!)
Also God and it never capitalises God
Oh brother!