Why I Never Became Eastern #Orthodox - Part 2

Last week I made a video about why I never became Eastern Orthodox and it got a lot of reaction, which is great, but that reaction was quite polarized and there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding about what I was trying to say in that video, so I wanted to take some more time to address some of the feedback as well as the misunderstandings from the previous commentary.

The first thing I’d want to point out and re-emphasize is that the perspective I’m trying to share on this topic is more personal than anything else. Some people complained that my presentation of the history and theology of the great schism was too one sided.
And that’s completely true. It’s the same criticism or disclaimer I made about it at the beginning of the video by saying that it wasn’t supposed to be an apologetic about why Catholicism is right and Eastern Orthodoxy wrong. It was about my reasons for not being Catholic as opposed to Eastern Orthodox which is going to be inherently one sided.

Ultimately, I’d hate for people to think that I’m positioning myself in an adversarial way towards Eastern Orthodoxy because the honest fact is, I do find the peculiarities in Eastern Christianity extremely attractive. I like a lot of the simplicity of it, I like icons, I absolutely LOVE eastern architecture. I love how you’ve been so steadfast against the aberrant currents of modernism, and I could go on.

So let me try to dispel what I think is the biggest misunderstanding from the last video which is that some people thought I was criticizing ethnic or national churches which is definitely not what I was trying to say. I think it’s great that there are particular churches that express the theology, liturgy, and spirituality of a particular heritage.

The point I was trying to make about the universality of the Church, is that there needs to be a way for those national churches to express their communion and universality with one another.
So in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, from what I understand, they would say that their universality is expressed in their common theology… their orthodoxy. But the question for me has always been, how is that common theology defined? How do you make sure that as new difficulties and controversies arise the entire Church responds to address them?

Well, if there’s no one final authority, like we have with the Pope, then you’d need an ecumenical council where all the patriarchs and bishops gather to define doctrines and settle controversies. But for the Eastern Orthodox, as they are known today, there hasn’t been an ecumenical council in over 1000 years.

And meanwhile, Rome never stopped calling and hosting ecumenical councils through the centuries. So there seems to be something, to me, about the Eastern Orthodox Churches that keeps them frozen and unable to reaffirm the universal aspect of our faith because there isn’t one unifying voice to bring them together in an ecumenical way.

In evaluating the East West schism, I tried to find a similar easy to identify and understand argument. Something that made one of the positions self refuting and I felt like I found it in the Eastern position and that’s what I was trying to emphasize in my last video.

I was interested in trying to discover which Church stayed true to the very thing they were contending in the division itself. The Eastern bishops maintained that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals but not supreme in authority. But after the schism, they excommunicated him and haven’t once shown him that kind of honor since, so they’ve betrayed their own position.

Now some people responded to that by saying, the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople too, which is true. But in so doing, he was acting in accord with the argument that the West was making which is that he had universal authority.
The East was saying that the authority of those ancient sees ended there. Constantinople couldn’t tell Rome what to do and vice versa. But in, excommunicating the Pope, they were contradicting themselves and their own arguments.

So, I hope that provides some more clarity for what I was trying to say in my last video and again, don’t take my word as some kind of authority because I’m not. Based on my comprehension level, these are the points I found persuasive. You should go do your own research because it matters, and it’s pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the East West schism is actually a great resource so, I’ll link it in the description.

Please comment with your ideas about the video and if you find it interesting, please share it and subscribe.

[Alexandru]

How many Orthodox councils have been since 1054?
Your answer:very few
My question: how many theological changes did the Orthodox Church suffered since the Schism?
Answer: very few. Orthodox Church does not like changes. It likes stability în faith.

[HermesSonofZeus]

Thanks for this. Greek Orthodox here. I appreciate your efforts and just want to touch on a few points. To begin, historical details indicate that the representatives from Rome began the 'mutual excommunications', indeed the Pope died and a new Pope had not been selected, leaving him with technically no power whatsoever. It's my understanding that, regardless, the Orthodox didn't excommunicate all of the Roman church, but just the Roman representatives, who delivered their attempt at excommunication on the altar, in the middle of a service. All of this business was put to rest much later, of course, and recognized as a sort of 'human error'. Nevertheless, from our perspective, the Roman church 'walked away'--and the consistency of its position is not an indication of its merit.
The Orthodox have continued to meet, in various forums, over the years, but the consistency of our doctrine has somewhat obviated the necessity for lots of formal meetings--still, it is a failing, of sorts, which we need to address, but you should be aware Eastern Orthodoxy is suffering from its own troubles (e.g. Russia). It is arguable that Rome's departure broke the system that had been in place since the beginning.
Also, for the record, we figuratively had a gun to our heads at Lyon. Don't forget Catholic Crusader armies had sacked Constantinople 70 years earlier and the city suffered two other attempted invasions in the intervening years. Soon afterwards, the Ottomans inherited the mantle of leadership from the Seljuks, who had been pressuring Constantinople for 250 years at that point. The Ottomans, emerging 25 years later, then began the end of that phase of our history.
There are a lot of details to these stories, but for the rest let it suffice to say that, from the Orthodox perspective, 'providence' hasn''t been kind to Catholicism either: the consistency of its theological innovations (e.g. original sin, versus ancestral sin)--again taken without consultation, which was the standard practice, and probably based on a error in translation from the original Greek to Latin taken up by St Augustine--has arguably led to the true fractioning of Christianity.

[Roca]

St. Matthew 16:18-19!
St. John 21:15-17!

Jesus asked St. Peter to lead His Church and the other apostles to help him govern it.

We are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH!

Not many, not national or regional!

[MitsoKara]

How to consolidate power in 3 easy steps.
1. Claim to be infallible
2. Excommunicates those who challenge said infallibility
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until a challenger appears in Avignon.

[Patrick-qmwf]

I'm reading the comments.
It's sad to see Christians who claim to love Christ argue among each other.
God have mercy.

[toddvoss]

Brian - I followed a similar path for similar reasons, and I was very attracted to EO - really more "attracted" than I was to RC. But it can't be all about "attraction". Enjoyed your take on all this - I think you were quite fair and transparent.

[JohnSmith-qxll]

I prefer the Western European style architecture compared to the round, almost Islamic architecture of Eastern Orthodoxy.

[nefelovamon]

Having watched both your videos on the matter, i got the impression that you were sincere in your testimony. At the same time, you weren't as sincere in your search.

For example, you claimed to have studied Church history. So, as you know, the Nicene Creed, was written in 325 and completed in 381AD, to protect the Church from heretic teachings. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has been using it unchanged, as a confession and as the means to tell correct from false doctrines. 7 centuries later...

"In 1009 Pope Sergius of Rome wrote a confession of faith which included the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Because of this, the Church of Constantinople removed his name and that of the Roman Church from the diptychs (the official list of sister churches and bishops who are liturgically commemorated by a given church). Then in 1014, the Roman Church, after resisting for over 200 years Germanic pressure to adopt the filioque, finally used this addition to the Creed in public worship for the first time—at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically, forty years later the Latin Christians would accuse the Greek Christians of being heretical for not using the filioque."

More reasons...
- Calling Divine Grace a creation, thus making Salvation impossible!!!
- Changes to how the Sacrament of Baptism is performed.
- Immaculate conception of Mary.
- Pope's Infallibility.
- Pope's supremacy.
- Pope being also the political leader the Vatican, a state that has ministers, diplomacy, economy, police and it even used to have an army.
- The crusades.
- Purgatory.
- ...

Short mentions on other points you've made:
Ecumenism: is a heresy.
Olive branch by the pope: Like the one in 1204?
Eastern Patriarchates falling to muslims: Patriarchates didn't fall anywhere because they're not a state. Even so, Rome fell much earlier, in 476. But under pagan rule in the 1st centuries, under Ottoman rule later on, under atheistic rule (USSR) more recently, Christianity still thrives and spreads.

Peace!

[NeedSomeNuance]

Yeah, but even your “one-sided” explanation used wrong historical information such as the order of the excommunications

[nickprobst]

Please reconsider the last part of your first video regarding the East where you point to their persecution and martyrdom as possible evidence of God’s displeasure.

[expert]

Orthodoxy May look simple but it goes insanely in depth

[ChaosRevealsOrder]

1:45 Orthodox church adapted with the times, not changing the Faith doesn't mean we don't adapt to the social confines we work in.
2:46 Jesus Christ is the final authority and there are meetings where all the Patriarchs are discussing important matters, as equals.

[Yamikaiba]

Is it really self-contradicting? If I'm a first among equals, then I grab one of my equals and put him in a jail cell because I think I should be the boss, doesn't that make me a tyrant and a danger to the church in the eyes of my equals who acknowledged me as an equal?

[Birdbussa]

They weren’t “contradicting themselves or their own arguments “ because the eastern view depended on consensus, which Rome violated

[lrsaenz]

Brian, I believe you have it wrong. The Pope excommunicated the Eastern church.

[CarlyLockman]

I really appreciated both of these videos. Thank you for taking the time to share your personal research and opinion.

It may have been mentioned somewhere, and if so I apologize, but did you know there is now an American branch of orthodoxy?

We were interested in exploring orthodoxy, but were honestly intimidated by waltzing into the Greek space nearby (as very obviously Scotch-Irish Americans 😂).

This American branch was recommended to us and it was a really welcoming experience. The priest even performed a “prayer for the sick service” for me shortly after I met with him to discuss the faith, as I was dealing with health problems at the time.

At the main service there were first generation Eastern Europeans from various countries, but also lots of multi-gen Americans.

Something I particularly liked is that they all shared a meal with each other after every Sunday service and hung out for a couple of hours.

I would be curious to know your take on this sect!

[raphaelpali]

I think you also need to know that you can only do your best in explaining yourself, but not everyone would agree with you and not everyone would get your point. Secondly you need to remember that it is okay if people don't agree with you and it is okay if you are misunderstood too. Just pray, keep your peace and stay sincere. Remain in Christ

[johng]

Hi Brian I would suggest you read Bishop Timothy Ware on this topic.

[sulajkovski]

Could you agree that each diocese must be whole complete Body of Christ? And that each Eucharist must be whole complete Body of Christ? Because, each Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church, the whole complete Body of Christ, and when we taste Eucharist, we taste whole complete Body of Christ, and not just some part of his Body. That is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church, that each part of the Church is whole and complete Church, and that was what originally meant to be Catholic. And therefore, all Bishops must be fundamentally equal, and the only supreme authority over the Church has Jesus Christ himself, the founder of the Church, True God, True Man, and the only High Priest. If the Bishop of Rome wants to have the supreme authority over the Church, then he is challenging Jesus on that position. That is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome.

[GeorgeKnighton]

This was interesting. Thank you for making both of your videos.

Just a couple of things I want to say, without arguing with you.

In the East, the Empire still existed and bishops were sanctioned by and approved by the Emperor. In the West, until 800 AD, the Bishop of Rome was still approved by the Emperor even though he was in Constantinople and even though by then the Emperor’s hegemony was largely reduced to more eastern realms.

So in the East it was unthinkable that a bishop would adopt an attitude of temporal suzerainty. In the East, religion was subordinated to the interests of the state.

In the West, the Church became the only remaining rump of imperial authority and I honestly believe that this was a big part of how the Pope became so important notwithstanding claims of dates of foundation, Apostolic foundation or anything else.

It was a natural evolution IMHO, not a real dogmatic issue.

About your comments about the atmosphere you encountered in the Ukrainian church, it seems to me that it is the Greek churches in America that have become more universal and more accepting to Anglophones and others because of (1)their ongoing titular allegiance to the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of a national church and (2)a very strong position of an Archbishop of North and South America makes it easy for them to accept Anglophones, Francophone and Hispanics.

They will also appear to be more socially liberal than their brothers because of this.

That’s all I really wanted to say because if I go on, I will appear to be arguing.

E.g., I believe the filioque is theologically incorrect, and I believe that requiring celibacy is an error.

:-)

But I don’t want to argue and I do not want to pretend that even if you believe slightly differently that you are especially condemned.

You’re wrong but not condemned. :-)