Unity and the Catholic Church

Join me on an epic eleven day pilgrimage to France in April 2027 as we follow the paths of influential French saints and celebrate private daily mass in the world's most iconic churches. Learn more at yCatholic. substack.com slash pilgrimage . There's this common trend when someone decides that they want to move from evangelicalism and mainstream Christianity to something more liturgical, ancient, global, rigorous, and hierarchical. They follow a very similar path. They might start by first looking at groups like Lutheran or Presbyterian, and usually that's very short-lived because those churches only date back to the Reformation. Then they look towards Anglicanism or Episcopalianism, but decide against that either on moral grounds or because they discover those churches actually come after the classical Protestant sects and were founded for political reasons. Next up is Eastern Orthodoxy where many find a home. But usually the last stop on this ecclesiastical train ride is the Catholic Church. It's the last stop because it's the last resort. Us evangelicals to Catholic converts have this funny saying. We were ABC, anything but Catholic. God make me anything, let me get off this ride anywhere, but at the last stop the Catholic Church. Even though Eastern Orthodox and Catholic are nearly identical forms of Christianity, minus the papacy and a few other minor issues, thanks to our anti Catholic biases, it's a whole lot more palatable to tell evangelical friends and family members that you've become Eastern Orthodox than it is to announce that you've become Catholic. If you tell them you're becoming Catholic, no doubt you're going to get a slew of people telling you you've been brainwashed into believing a false gospel. But the blowback will likely be much less if you tell them you're becoming Orthodox, even though soteriologically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between Catholic and Orthodox. I live on the backside of the Wasatch Mountains in Utah, and I have to be honest and say that if there was an Orthodox Church anywhere near me, my journey may have at least started there, if not landed me, in Eastern Orthodoxy. I certainly didn't want to become Catholic. But the Catholic Church was closer, and while that may have initially been the reason why I became Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox, the longer that I am Catholic and study Church history, the more that I am convinced that my decision was both prudent and providential. Hi, I'm Justin Hibbert, and you're listening to Why Catholic, my podcast about the what and why of Catholicism. One of the questions that I get asked over and over is why Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox. And so even though I've talked about this in a number of episodes, which I've linked to in the show notes, I want to focus an entire episode on this topic. But before I continue, let me say thank you for joining me today, whether you were first time or a longtime listener. Why Catholic is my labor of love, where I dive into the what and the why of the Catholic faith in episodes that you can digest on a walk or while cooking dinner or commuting to work. I do want to give you a little warning though, while my aim is to keep these episodes to about 17 minutes, this one is going to be a bit longer. I want to do this episode justice and it deserves a little bit more time. If you have been blessed by this podcast, I would love for you to be a supporter. You can do that by going to yCatholic.substack.com slash subscribe. And for just five dollars a month, you can help ensure this podcast reaches as many people as possible. Thank you for your support. Let me preface this episode by saying that I love my Eastern Orthodox brethren. I love our partnership when it comes to ancient Christianity, and I can see why so many people are attracted to the Orthodox traditions and the divine liturgy. And if you had to choose between a Protestant tradition or the Orthodox, you should hands down choose Eastern Orthodoxy. They have valid orders, meaning their bishops and patriarchs are successors of the Apostles, and so their sacraments are valid and are faithful to the ancient Christian faith. And unlike Protestants who have stripped away sacraments if not done away with sacramental theology entirely, the Orthodox faithfully hold to the ancient seven sacraments of the Christi an Church and the Sacramental Worldview. Let me also preface this episode by saying this. If you are a Protestant leaning towards Eastern Orthodox, I want you to deeply examine yourself. If you're a lifelong Protestant like I was, there is anti-Catholic bias that exists, and it needs to be identified and scrutinized. Fundamental to Protestantism, ingrained into the very fabric of Protestantism, is anti-Cathol icism. And so if you find yourself gravitating towards Eastern Orthodoxy as though it's a more palatable solution, even though the two faiths are nearly identical, at least in doctrine, then it's likely because of anti-Catholic bias. Now before anything else, we have to do a deep dive into history because at the core of the Catholic versus Orthodox argument is the historical church. I deal a lot with this in my series on the 21 Ecumenical Councils starting in episode 146. And for those of you that are considering making this move from some Protestant sect to ancient Christianity, let me encourage you not to just take my word for any of this , really examine the historical record. As you are probably aware, the Catholic Church sees its Mother Church as the Church in Rome, with the Bishop in Rome, aka the Pope, as its earthly authority. Whereas the Orthodox Church sees the Church in Constantinople, well, now Istanbul, and the Patriarch of Constantinople as the leader. However, it's important to note that there are a lot of differences between the authority that the Pope has over the Catholic Church versus the authority the Patriarch of Constantinople has over the Orthodox Church. More on that in a minute. Let's go way back to Jesus' ascension, when the disciples followed Jesus ' great commissioning, they took the gospel to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and beyond. James went to Spain, Thomas to India, John to Asia Minor, Matthew to Africa, and Peter and Paul ended up in Rome. Christianity grew very quickly. A part of the reason it grew so fast is because Pentecost, aka the Jewish feast of Shavuot, is a pilgrimage feast. So those three thousand people that became Christians at Pentecost went back to their homes and were a catalyst for the spread of Christianity. What we see emerge in the first couple hundred years of Christianity are some major hubs, which are later known as patriarchates. Primarily there were three: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Jerusal em gets named as sort of an honorary patriarchate. But why wasn't Jerusalem considered the major hub of Christianity? The reason is because it was sacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. So Jerusalem was always an important city for Christians, but it wasn't a prominent city because most fled when Rome destroyed it. But in the other cities, Christianity was thriving and was serving as a training ground for Christian apologists and clergy, and we can see in the historical record some differences in theology taught in these regions, particularly in Antioch. Now keep in mind that for the first almost three hundred years of Christianity experienced waves of persecution . And so it wasn't safe for Christians to assemble to really define its norms and customs on a large scale. However, even still, there were norms and customs that developed. For example, the Christian world was broken up into geograph ical regions, and a bishop was assigned as the leader of that region. In Western Catholicism, we call these dioceses. The bishop would ordain priests and deacons in that region, and it was understood that other bishops were not to interfere with regions outside of their jurisdiction. In fact, one famous instance of this was when the bishop Melidius of Lycopolis started ordaining deacons and priests in Alexandria, because Peter, the rightful bishop or patriarch of Alexandria, was in prison. The other bishops in that area gathered and essentially sent Melidius a cease and desist letter. These regions also had norms for replacing a bishop when he died, and the historical record shows that some tried to usurp power by violating that norm. A famous incident of this was when Novatian or Novat us tricked people into making him the bishop of Rome after Fabian died. There was some real confusion for a short time on who the rightful bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, was, but ultimately was settled by a local council and Cornelius, who was properly elected, emerged. In 312, Constantine I became the Emperor of the Roman Empire, and in 313 he issued the Edict of Milan, which protected the practice of Christianity and banned any further persecution. He also moved his operations from He wanted to continue expanding the Roman Empire and taking it further east, so he set up shop in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Now the other thing about the Roman Em pire was that it had two predominant languages and lots of local dialects. The conquest of Alexander the Great and his philosophy of Hellenization meant that Greek was the lingua franca throughout the empire. It's why the Hebrew language almost entirely died out and the ancient Jewish writings were translated into Greek. It's why the entire New Testament was written in Greek. But the Roman Empire introduced the Latin language, and so for example, we see in John 19 that Pilate made an inscription for Jesus' cross that said, Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews, in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. And so towards the west, where Rome was, there was a major concentration of Latin speakers. As you moved towards the East, the Latin language wasn't nearly as prominent. There were still lots of Greek speakers, and because language and culture are inseparable, it meant that you had a couple of very different cultures, philosophical ways of thinking, and even some different ways of worshiping. With the legalization of Christianity, it meant for the first time Christians could openly practice, assemble, and teach the Christian faith. It also meant that heretics could do the same and spread heterodox views of Christianity. And one famous person to do that was the cleric Arius, who had been unlawfully ordained by Melidius of Lycopolis, and eventually condemned and kicked out of Alexandria. He went north to Antioch and continued teaching there. Arianism, Arius' form of Christianity, was quite popular, and it was fracturing the Christian Church. Concerned that this division in Christianity might also cause division in his empire, Constantine convened what is considered the first ecumenical council in Nica ea in three hundred twenty five, and he invited bishops from all over the empire to attend. What's so remarkable about this council is that this is the first meeting of its kind for the Christian Church. Had bishops tried to do this previously, they would have been an easy target for persecution. We know that the Roman emperors often targeted the bishops in the various regions. They were the ringleaders of the Christian faith. Now, because the Council of Nicaea occurred in the east in modern day Turkey, it was a whole lot easier for bishops on the east side of the Roman Empire to attend. However, Hosius of Cordoba was selected to preside over the council. Cordoba is in southern Spain, so Hosius was a Latin speaking bishop. And from what we know about the council, there was representation from both the Latin and the Greekak-ings chpeur ches. The main focus at the Council of Nicaea was Arianism, but because this was the first time the church was able to gather at this scale, they also took time to define some other norms and practices and they issued twenty canons. Canon means a measure or standard. One of the things they decided was to define these patriarchates which gave the power of a bishop, which they called a metropolitan, to oversee other dioceses. We call these archdiocese and archbishops. For example, I live in the diocese of Salt Lake City. The bishop of Salt Lake City is the leader of our diocese, and our metropolitan bishop is the archbishop of Los V egas. The Council of Nicaea in Canon six said this Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis prevail, that the bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges, and this is to be universally understood that if any one There's a couple of things happening here. First it's acknowledging Rome's prominence as an ecclesiastical hub, and then it's saying that Alexandrian Antioch should also be one of these types of patriarchates, modeling itself after how Rome functions. Canon 7 then lists Jerusalem as an honorary patriar chate. So according to the first council of Nicaea, there are four hubs of Christianity, which I mentioned earlier Rome, which was already assumed, Alexandria in northern Africa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which was more honor ary than it was influential. After the Council of Nicaea, Constantine completed building the city of Constantinople, which became the capital of the Roman Empire, and was even given the moniker New Rome. Now, after Constantine's death, there's a whole lot of political upheaval, and essentially the Roman Empire splits into two, the West and the East, and they split kind of right along the language lines. So the Western Roman Empire is mainly Latin speaking, and the East is mainly Greek speaking. Even though Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicaea in three hundred twenty five, Arianism didn't go away. It really thrived, particularly in the Eastern Roman Empire, and it spawned other heresies like Pneumatomachianism. In 380, Theodosius I, who was the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, made Trinitarian Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and then he convened a council, the first council of Constantinople, in 381. While this is considered the church's second ecumenical council, it was really only intended to be a local council. It had virtually no Latin representation. In fact, after the council, they sent a letter to the Bishop of Rome explaining why they felt they needed a clean house in the East rather than invite a broader audience. The first council of Constantinople, which was extremely important and completed the creed that we say today in Mass almost didn't become an ecumenical council, but the Bishop of Rome ratified it. Now, an important decision at this council, which almost led to its demise, was Canon III. Because it is New Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor after the Bishop of Rome. In other words, this council not only named Constantinople a patriarchate, but it gave it prominence after the See of Rome and its bishop and ahead of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This was such a big deal that it almost led to its rejection. However, once it was ratified and accepted by the bishop of And now a political capital with a main church in Constantinople , which was even called New Rome. This couldn't possibly become problematic, could it? Well, long story short, it was. There was constant conflict between Rome and Constantinople, and especially between the Pope A.K. the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. A lot of it was politically motivated as the Patriarch of Constantinople was in close vicinity to the Roman Emperor who resided in Constantinople. Alright, I've given a ton of historical background because my arguments for why Catholic and not Orthodox are deeply rooted in history. After all, I think one of the big sticking points for people that go on this journey is they want to get to the true historical church, and so we have to do a deep dive in history. My first reason why Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox is because the Church in Rome and the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, has always been given prominence in the early church. In Saint Irenae's landmark work Against Heresies written in one hundred eighty five, he states quote Since however it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings. We do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, as also by pointing out the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops, for it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church on account of its pre eminent authority, that is the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere. Notice that he's distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic Christian churches, and he says that the universally known church was founded and organized at Rome by Peter and Paul. For this reason, historically, the church has noted that Rome has a double apostolic founding. There were a number of churches founded by various apostles, but Rome was founded by two of them, Peter and Paul. And Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He was named as the leader of the disciples. Even though he wasn't the first to be called to follow Jesus, any time in the gospels where the disciples names are listed, he is always first. Thus it's not just that the church of Rome was founded by two apostles, but that one of them was Peter himself. Then Saint Arenae says, quote, for it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority. End quote. He's talking about the church in Rome. Every church needs to agree with this church because it has preeminent authority. Then Saint Irenaeus in the next paragraph goes on to list the successors of Saint Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc. These are the popes of the church. This was written one hundred and fifty years before Constantinople and the church at Constantinopol was even founded. So right away, I don't understand the argument that some Orthodox make that their church was the church that Jesus founded. It clearly has its origins as an established patriarchy in 381. Now, I think maybe Orthodox would say something similar to what Protestants claim, and they might say that really it's the Pope that usurped authority and broke away from the universal church. And here's where we really have to get into history, because you may be aware of the Great Schism, but in reality, there was conflict between Rome and Constantinople since day one. So many of the early church heresies had their origin in Constantinople. Arianism didn't originate in Constantinople, but it was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was Constantine's right hand man, who poured gasoline all over that fire. In fact, when Eusebius returned from exile and became the patriarch of Constantinople again, he convinced Constantine to throw a huge parade for Arius and welcome him back into the church. Eusebius was responsible for ousting a lot of Trinitarian bishops, including Saint Athanasius. Nestorianism, which was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, originated from Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Monophysicism, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, originated from Eudicus, a priest in Constantinople. Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, came up with monoranergism and then monothelitism. Both were condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople in six hundred eighty and six hundred eighty one. And then iconoclasm originated with Emperor Leo III of Constantinople and was condemned at the Church's seventh council, the Second Council of Nicaea. And who weighed in on all these councils? The Pope was given deference in settling many of these debates. What's ironic is that the Pope never attended the first eight councils. And I think many use that as an argument to say, well, that just proves that the Pope didn't have that much authority in the early church. But yet, after the first council of Constantinople in 381, the Council sent a letter to the Pope basically explaining why they felt they needed to meet and clean house and essentially asked for the Pope to recognize the council as legitimate. At the Council of Chalced on, they read Pope Leo the Great's letter, also called Leo's tome, and the Council Fathers started shouting, quote, This is the faith of the fathers and the apostles, and that through Leo Saint Peter has spoken, end quote. So many times in the first eight councils, it was the Pope that steered the Church in Constantinople and the Universal Church as a whole off the cliff of heresy. This brings me to the Eighth Council, because while we often say that the great schism was the great divorce between the West and the East, that's just a convenient date for historians. The Great Schism was more or less a nothing burger. In fact, the Pope was dead when the papal legates issued the documents of excommunication, so it wasn't even a binding excommunication. Really, if you ask me, the date of the Great Schism was much earlier, during the late 800s, and it revolved around the patriarch of Constantinople named Photius. Now I did a whole episode on this, episode 158, in my series on the ecumenical councils. But just as a brief recap, Photius was a power-hungry individual that usurped power by having Ignatius ousted as the patriarch of Constantinople. Photius then wrote to Pope Nicholas I asking him to approve his appointment as patriarch, again showing the Pope's preeminent authority. Pope Nicholas, after getting word that Photius had illegitimately usurped power, convened a local council in Rome in 863 in which they claimed Photius was an imposter and Ignatius was the rightful patriarch. Photius then took aim at the Pope and the Western Church. He began essentially a propaganda campaign. Since the West practiced priestly celibacy, he took aim at that. Since they used unleavened bread in the West, he made that a big deal. And you may be familiar with the Filioque Clause, the statement in Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the East, they just say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The addition of the Son was later added in the West. And from what we know, this wasn't a big deal until Photius made it one in his campaign against the Western Church. Photius then convened a local council in 867 and convinced 21 bishops to excommunicate the Pope, but he also forged about a thousand other signatures. It's so interesting to me that I often hear Orthodox talk about the great schism and the injustice done by the Catholic Church in excommunicating the patriarch, yet I've never heard any Orthodox person talk about how 200 years earlier Photius forged signatures and excommunicated the Pope. All of this led to the Church's eighth ecumenical council, the fourth council of Constantinople. Remember that ecumenical councils are the highest authoritative councils in the church. In fact, even the classical Protestant churches recognize the first seven councils as authoritative. This would be the last council held in the East, and it would be the last ecumenical council to take place before the Great Schism. At this council, the council fathers put Photius on trial, determined that he was a schismatic, and they sent him into exile. However, ten years later, Photius returned, got into the good graces of the emperor , and when patriarch Ignatius died, Photius took over as Patriarch of Constantinople. He convened a local council in eight seventy nine and eight eighty, which approved his appointment and condemned the West's filioque addition to the creed. And if you ask an Eastern Orthodox what is the Eighth Ecumenical Council, it's not the council that condemned Photius, but rather this local council in eight seventy nine and 880, that approved his appointment. And what's astounding to me is that Photius is now venerated as a saint and a hero in the Orthodox Church. One of the arguments that Orthodox make against the Catholic Church is the authority of the Pope. They'll say that they believe in a structure of first among equals. That is, that the Pope should have authority, but in conjunction with the other patriarchs, and that the idea that the Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the entire church is a vast departure from the early church. Now given what Saint Irenaeus wrote in one hundred eighty five, I think it's clear that the Pope has always had that authority. However, I do think that the Pope's authority has gotten further defined as history has unfolded, and I would argue that it's what happened in Constantinople between 300 and 900 that forced the Church to further define the Pope's authority. Moving on in history, relations between the West and East were not good. Of course, there was the event known as the Great Schism in 1054, where papal legates excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Carrillarius. The Church in Const antinople persecuted, murdered, and kicked out Latin Catholics. In 1202, during the Fourth Crusade, despite Pope Innocent's objection, Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople. Really, neither group gets a pass at having the moral high ground. But I want to turn to two events. The first is the second council of Leon in 1274. During this time, Constantinople was in bad shape and really needed the West's support. So the emperor in Constantinople, that is to say, the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Emperor, Michael VIII, Paleolog os, came to the council to sign an agreement whereby the Orthodox would reunify with the Catholic Church. The patriarch of Constantinople named Joseph refused to comply with the reunification and was ousted and replaced. However, ultimately, this agreement of reunification fell apart. Now I can understand why Orthodox would not recognize what happened at the Second Council of Leon, because it was really the doing of the emperor rather than church as a whole. But what I don't get is the Council of Florence, the Church's 17th Ecumenical Council in fourteen thirty one to fourteen forty five. It's here that all the patriarchs and some seven hundred Eastern bishops came to the Council and agreed to come into full communion with the Catholic Church and the Pope in Rome. They agreed to the Pope's authority . They agreed to theological differences like the Filioque, Purgatory, and other issues. On july sixth, fourteen thirty-nine, the union between the West and the East was proclaimed in a solemn mass, and the decree on unity called Le Tentercelli, let the heavens rejoice, was proclaimed at the Mass in both Latin and Greek. The Eastern Church's decision to reunify with the Catholic Church became a catalyst for a whole bunch of other smaller churches to reunify with the Catholic Church as well. There was one holdout at that council, Mark of Ephesus. He opposed reunification. And when the agreement was signed and the Eastern bishops returned home, Mark did everything to lead a campaign to derail the reunification. And ultimately the reunification fell apart. And just like Photius, Mark of Ephesus is revered as a saint and a hero and the Orthodox Church. I can understand the attractiveness of a structure where a collective group of patriarchs rules together, a single leader that has supreme jurisdiction over the church gives me pause as it should. But at the end of the day, when a church won't even follow their patriarchs and instead celebrate schismatics, what does that say about the church and the effectiveness of its leadership structure. I've come to the conclusion that the issue isn't how much authority the Pope should have, it's that the church really needs to scrutinize the person to whom they give that authority. But here's where the structure of the Catholic Church prevails. Because it can make decisions the way it does, it has established mechanisms for greater unity. Many churches in the East followed through with that agreement at the Council of Florence and remained in communion with the Catholic Church. And today the Catholic Church is made up of twenty-four Sui Ures churches. Twenty-three of those are Eastern Churches. The other church is the Latin or Roman Catholic Church. All of those churches are in communion together with the Pope in Rome as its earthly leader. Furthermore, because of the way it can make decisions, the Catholic Church has established the ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, which allows for Anglican and Episcopalian churches and bishops to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. So for me, this really came down to a question of unity. I took very seriously Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Ghessene, his dying wish that his followers would emulate the unity of the Trinity, and whereas the Orthodox Church is a fractured mess that can't seemingly make important decisions and celebrate schismatics, the Catholic Church is the only church that is seriously moving towards greater unity . Thank you for joining me for Why Catholic. Be sure to subscribe to Y Catholic wherever you get your podcast. And you can also subscribe to my Substack site and get the next episode in your email inbox. As a subscriber, you get a special discount code to the Y Catholic Etsy store. If you've been blessed by this podcast and you're feeling generous, there's also a way to financially support it and patrons get some extra perks. To become a free subscriber or a patron, just go to yCatholic.substack.com/slash subscribe. Also join me on Instagram at YCatholic Pod cast All OneWord. Thanks again for listening. My name is Justin Hibbert, and this is Y Catholic. God bless you.