John Beeler: My trip through Eastern Orthodoxy

I'd known of Eastern Christianity since the early 1980s, and my first traditional Catholic liturgy was Ukrainian.

I'd be interested to know: why did you you leave the Latin Church when you did?

Three things: I was trying to look cool, keeping my traditionalism but dressing it up in a way I thought would please the hipsters, et al. (reducing religion to private opinion, like a hobby); the American Catholic Church in the early '90s was very inhospitable to conservative Catholics, between Pope Paul VI's English Novus Ordo (not Pope Benedict's corrected version) and low-church liberals locally in charge; and I have a learning disability I didn't understand at the time that caused me social problems, which I blamed on the church.

In 1995 I read Fr. Seraphim (Rose); here was a traditionalist who seemed cool without compromising and seemed to have an answer why the West went to hell in the '60s. Online fora/newsgroups at the time were a bad influence too: it was still the height of the convert boomlet with ex-Catholics testifying. I fell for "the modern papacy caused the heresy after Vatican II" or something like that, a mutation of Archbishop Lefebvre's correct observation that the council was a mistake and it was "a masterstroke of Satan" to tear down tradition under the guise of obedience. The continued '50s-like normality of Orthodoxy's ethnic folk Catholicism's a great thing, in contrast. So off I went.

But here's the rub. I couldn't buy the party line that allows the opinion that Catholicism's been a fraud since the schism. Also, looking the other way on contraception doesn't work. Neither does church divorce and remarriage: "sometimes adultery is OK"? Early on I lost faith in the schism so most of my time in Orthodoxy I took cover under an unusual "refugee from Vatican II" priest (much like this fellow), pro-Catholic, whom I felt I had to cover for, to protect. At the same time, I spent five years part-time at an Anglo-Papalist Anglican church, a bridge back to the church. (In the late '80s the place was my bridge out of the church, as I had been confirmed in '84; in the '00s I took the same bridge right back in! More on me and Anglo-Catholicism.) Then Benedict became Pope, freed up the old Mass, AND in 2011 fixed English Novus (I have no conscience problem with the text of the new Mass), AND that priest suddenly left town in 2011, so at the end of the year I came home to the church.

Sure, I like the ethnics and like the rite. Leaving was nothing personal. But being there was hypocritical, not fair to the Orthodox; I didn't belong.

Orthodoxy is making an idol of good things: tribe, nation, culture, rite, setting them above God and the church. For a Westerner, becoming Orthodox is a self-hating act. Overt or inverted, false religion is always about self, not God.

The Pope's office, not the man, shares in the church's charism of infallibility. The Council of Florence has explained the filioque: THROUGH the Son, proceeding "eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

To this layman with no theological credentials, it’s long seemed that some Orthodox, in order to deny they’re really Catholic, will sound Pelagian about original sin and Lutheran about the Eucharist.

The anti-Westernism turned me off so much that when I came home I went Roman Rite, but I'm not at all anti-Eastern. Update: I go to a Ukrainian Catholic church 1/4 of the year.

There's no such thing as "the Orthodox Church." Their dioceses and ours are sisters; the Catholic Church of course has no sisters just like God doesn't have brothers. Together their dioceses don't equal a church.

We can learn a lot from the Orthodox: grassroots traditionalism (don't modernize the services), the church at its best as the Church Local. As I like to say, everything in church polity is negotiable except the papacy and the episcopate, so Catholic/Orthodox dialogue is possible and desirable. Our shared way forward: a loose communion of local churches run by custom... that includes the Pope. But the schism is based on a lie: that we don't share the essentials of the faith (God, Christ, Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, the Mass, and the option of using images), and that the Pope's office hasn't been a good caretaker of that faith. The schism was perpetuated by sultans, tsars, petty Balkan princes, and Communists to rip the church apart: the myth that Orthodoxy is a completely different religion. Its reason to exist as a separate church is to hate the Catholic Church. But it has never dogmatized anything un-Catholic and retains bishops and the Mass. Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. The Orthodox are estranged Catholics.
Holy Leonty (Feodorov) and Andrew (Sheptytsky), pray to God for us!