In recent times, the online world has witnessed a trend of individuals from diverse religious backgrounds, including Catholics, converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholics who embrace Eastern Orthodoxy often feel a sense of disillusionment with certain aspects of their former faith, whether it be perceived doctrinal developments, ecclesiastical structures, or liturgical practices. Yet, in their quest for what they perceive as “greener pastures,” it’s crucial to consider the implications of leaving behind the apostolic lineage and doctrinal continuity inherent in Catholicism.
Canonical Confusion
The Bible embodies the word of God, carrying profound significance for believers worldwide. The early Church grappled with the task of identifying the precise contents of the Bible. In the fourth century, local councils, such as those convened in North Africa, sought to establish a definitive canon. This North African code, as it came to be known, encapsulated the sacred texts deemed authentic and inspired by God. These early local councils, with the prime mover being St. Augustine of Hippo, received their stamp of approval from the bishop of Rome. For many centuries, the contents of the Catholic canon of Scripture were recognized in the East and the West.
Pope St. Agatho’s affirmations during the Sixth Ecumenical Council, or Constantinople III, highlighted this consensus, validating the canonical status of the scriptures as recognized by both traditions. However, the schism between East and West ushered in a period of divergence on many vital issues, one being the canon of Scripture.
One significant divergence emerged with Patriarch Cyril Lucar’s rejection of the deuterocanonical books in the seventeenth century, wherein he labeled them apocryphal. But the subsequent Orthodox synod’s condemnation of Lucar’s heresies reaffirmed the canonical status of the deuterocanon.
Nonetheless, the Eastern Orthodox approach to the canon today remains fraught with ambiguity, debate, and contention. Scholars grapple with varying interpretations, with some outright denying the deuterocanonical books’ canonical status, whereas others advocate for the inclusion of additional texts not universally recognized by early councils.
The Catholic Church stands as a guardian of the complete canon, rooted in ancient councils and apostolic authority. Eastern Orthodoxy grapples with the legacy of schism and theological discord.
A Painful Purge
The doctrine of purgatory stands as one of the most debated topics within Christian theology, particularly between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. Central to the Catholic understanding of purgatory is the belief in a state of purification after death, wherein souls undergo a process of cleansing to attain the holiness necessary for entrance into the fullness of divine glory. This purification carries connotations of suffering and penance for past sins.
This doctrine has been a point of contention between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who usually admit to the possibility of purification after death but vehemently reject the claim that it involves any suffering.
The Bible offers passages that suggest such a post-mortem purification.
In 1 Corinthians 3, St. Paul speaks of a salvation through fire, indicating a purification process that takes place after death. St. Cyprian, a prominent figure in the early Church, spoke explicitly of purgatory as a post-mortem prison where souls undergo fiery purification before entering into glory.
Likewise, St. Basil the Great, a revered Eastern Church Father, alludes to a fiery-like suffering in the afterlife:
If therefore we have disclosed our sins by confession, we have dried up the grass as it was growing, clearly suitable to be consumed and devoured by the purgatorial fire. It does not threaten destruction and extermination, but beckons to purgation (Commentary on Isaiah IX).
Even within the ranks of Eastern Orthodoxy, there are voices that hint at the possibility of post-mortem suffering for purification. Stalwarts like Mark of Ephesus, while refuting the idea of a literal fire in post-mortem purification, nonetheless acknowledged the existence of post-mortem suffering for sins in the afterlife.
Therefore, modern-day Eastern Orthodox believers should find no contradiction in accepting the possibility of a post-mortem purification process. This is also an area where, as Catholics, we should call our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters to return to the faith of their fathers.
Our Immaculate Mother Mary
Few doctrines evoke as much debate and division as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This belief, central to Catholic Mariology, asserts that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, preserved from the moment of her conception from the stain of Adam’s transgression. The origins of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be traced back to the language Sacred Scripture uses for Holy Mary as well as the picture the early Church painted of the Mother of God. Although the precise formulation of the dogma took centuries to develop, the seeds of the belief can be found in the writings of early Church Fathers, both East and West.
Eastern saints such as St. Ephrem the Syrian and St. John Damascene articulated notions of Mary’s sinlessness and purity at creation, laying the groundwork for later theological developments. Their hymns and treatises extolled Mary as the “all-holy” and “all-pure,” emphasizing her unique status.
However, despite these early affirmations, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has gradually become a point of contention between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. As Eastern Orthodoxy evolved and theological differences deepened, the once-held belief in Mary’s immaculate creation widely fell out of favor.
One notable figure in Eastern Orthodox theology who affirmed the Immaculate Conception is Gregory of Palamas. His writings underscored the purity and sanctity of Mary from the moment of her conception, aligning closely with the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception. Additionally, Mark of Ephesus articulated the concept of the immaculate creation of Mary, emphasizing her unique role in salvation history.
Remarkably, at the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, which aimed at reunion between East and West, the Immaculate Conception was not a point of contention. Instead, the council focused on issues such as papal authority and the filioque clause.
The call for Eastern Orthodoxy to return to the faith of their fathers in affirming the Immaculate Conception is not a call to abandon tradition, but rather a call to return to the roots of the apostolic faith.
The Strength of the Shepherd
At the heart of Christian ecclesiology lies the foundational belief in the establishment of the Church by Jesus Christ himself. In Matthew 16:18-19, Christ declares to St. Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The recognition of Peter as the rock upon which Christ founded his Church is not merely symbolic, but holds great theological significance. Peter, as the chief among the apostles, was uniquely entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, signifying his authority to govern and guide the Church on earth.
The recognition of papal prerogatives, including primacy and infallibility, finds firm support in the writings of early Church Fathers and the decrees of early ecumenical councils. The unity between East and West in affirming the authority of the papacy is evident in the historical record, with councils such as the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) recognizing the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It should also be noted that at Constantinople III, convened in the seventh century, Pope St. Agatho made a significant assertion that continues to resonate in Catholic theology: Agatho famously applied the biblical passage of Luke 22:31-32 to the office of the papacy. It is here that Agatho clearly teaches that the gift of infallibility is to be provided, confirming the words spoken by Christ when he confirmed the strength of the shepherd to the apostle Peter.
What’s particularly noteworthy about this assertion is that it wasn’t a point of contention between East and West. Both Eastern and Western representatives at the council acknowledged and accepted the papal prerogatives articulated by Agatho.
However, with the schism between East and West, the unity and recognition of papal authority within the Eastern Orthodox tradition were severed. Whereas the Catholic Church continued to uphold the primacy of Peter’s successors and the infallibility of the papal office, Eastern Orthodoxy broke from this biblical and patristic divine model, set up by Christ himself.
As Catholics, we firmly believe that although Eastern Orthodoxy embodies aspects of the apostolic faith, it does not represent the fullness of that faith. The Catholic Church, with its unbroken apostolic succession, sacramental richness, doctrinal clarity, and universal communion, stands as the beacon of unity and the bearer of the fullness of Christian truth.
For those earnestly seeking authentic Christianity and desiring the fullness of the faith as established by Jesus Christ, we extend an invitation to explore or return to Catholicism. Within the Catholic Church, we find not only the richness of apostolic roots, but also the fullness of divine revelation preserved and proclaimed through the ages.