Orthodoxy vs Catholicism

Those drawn towards the Eastern Church should consider Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches

Table of Contents

1. National Division Among Eastern Orthodoxy

2. Divorce and Remarriage

3. Contraception

4. Doctrines: Original Sin, Purgatory and the Filioque

5. Two Traditions = Both Lungs

6. Novel Orthodox Ecclesiology

7. A Defense of Pope Francis

8. Liberalism Among the Orthodox

9. The Papacy

10. Conclusion

Like those drawn towards Orthodoxy, I too am drawn towards the Eastern expression of Christianity. It emphasizes the mystical nature of the truth, and Americans are actually more like Eastern Europeans than Western Europeans religiously in that they are more drawn towards mystical truth as opposed to scholasticism. Eastern apologetics on topics such as the Real Presence, “purgatory” and other topics are often much more convincing than Western apologetics to many Americans. The entire Catholic Church has come around to embracing a more Eastern theological view on certain matters, such as purgatory and original sin, as the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church shows.

If you read my testimony, you will see that when I first left Protestantism I was attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Because of the disunity among the Orthodox, and the overtly nationalist nature of its Churches, I was not sure which Church to join. After praying about it, God guided me to the Catholic Church instead, but I have always been drawn towards Eastern theology and spirituality. In recent years I have discovered Byzantine Catholicism, and while I am still canonically Latin, I am working on moving myself and my children under the Byzantine Rite, as that’s where God is calling me and hence my family. It has everything I love about Orthodoxy and Catholicism combined.

I have rarely been critical of Orthodoxy, and have regularly bit my tongue regarding Orthodoxy, because I love my Orthodox brothers and sisters. Every single day I dream about the schism ending. Every day, I pray for it. I try not to burn bridges because I believe all Catholics and Orthodox may be reunited in full communion very soon, and we should all work as individuals to heal the schism. Furthermore, I have suffered many attacks from traditional Catholics, and sedevacantists in particular, for being “too friendly” towards Orthodoxy.

Some have accused me of essentially being Orthodox already, but I would assure them I am entirely Catholic and fully convinced of the Catholic faith. This article is a detailed reasoning of why I recommend a person discerning Catholicism and Orthodoxy actually choose Catholicism instead, and specifically a Byzantine Rite Church if they are drawn towards the Eastern expression. If you follow me as an Orthodox Christian on X I my prayer is that you will consider my arguments, and that even if you disagree you will understand I come from a place of charity and sincerity. We are brothers in Christ and we should be allied as Catholics and Orthodox. We even share Church buildings in the Holy Land, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Church of the Nativity, which feature Orthodox and Catholic masses alike.

Without further ado, here are my arguments in favor of Catholicism:

National Division among the Orthodox Churches

When I first endeavored to join the Orthodox Church years ago, it was my understanding that I would simply join the universal Orthodox Church. However, this actually does not exist. It’s several separate national Churches, loosely united, which sometimes cannot agree on serious matters of justification. Even Orthodox believers typically agree that this is complete disaster and undermines their claims. This problem is succinctly summarized in the story of William Palmer:

William Palmer, a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wished to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation in the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of Holy Chrism or Confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism (which incidentally was admitted without question by the Orthodox Russian Church), he considered that a second baptism would be a sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian Church, since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national Church but to join the universal Orthodox Church. No one could solve his dilemma, and so he became a Roman Catholic.

Not only are Orthodox Churches not in communion with St. Peter, but they are frequently not in communion with one another. As the theologian William Palmer found out, if he joined the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox would see him as a “heathen.” Even when Patriarchs reconcile their differences, if you are say, a Greek Orthodox living in Russia, you are at the mercy of your Patriarch not to come out of communion with Russia in the future. This continuous national strife is a source of massive division among the Orthodox even in 2025. See example 1, example 2 and example 3. If you are leaving Protestantism, do you really want to join another Church that has schisms among itself? Even many great Orthodox believers are sick of the division and turmoil.

Divorce and Remarriage

In Catholicism, divorce is never allowed. There’s no possibility of divorce at all, as the Christian marriage vows state, “what God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:9). There’s no way to get out of a marriage short of one spouse dying, this is why Catholics take marriage preparation extremely seriously and we don’t allow any “shotgun marriages.” Many couples are surprised at the intensity and detail of Catholic pre-Cana courses that they are required to go through in order to marry within the Catholic Church. We also do not accept all marriages outside the Church as sacramental, and convalidate them when someone converts (and make them take pre-Cana courses too, and sign documents affirming that they accept Catholic doctrine on the matter, and agree never to use contraception, another topic we will address shortly). Marriage is a sacrament (or mystery, to use Eastern terminology) which helps us get to heaven, and your marriage is not sacramental in nature if you marry at a city hall, and may not be under certain conditions within a Protestant church (for example, one or both spouses are not baptized - a sadly common occurrence among Baptist and Evangelical congregations).

Heading into 1000 AD, all Eastern believers agreed with the Catholic Church on this matter, no exceptions. However, shortly after the Great Schism in 1054, as Rome feared would happen, the Byzantine rulers started dictating to the Orthodox Church what to do. Undue and illicit State influence has always been a dire problem for the Orthodox, as we see even in Russia today, and during Soviet times.

As Fr. Hugh Barbour writes for Catholic.com:

Russian Orthodox canon lawyers of the nineteenth century readily admitted that the Roman Church’s insistence on the point of the indissolubility of marriage was the original, apostolic doctrine. In fact, this doctrine was so strict that St. Paul views remarriage in the case of widowed persons a concession to human weakness Indeed, the Orthodox Church uses the rite for remarriage of widows and widowers for the remarriage of divorced persons, thus implying that the justification for remarriage before the death of living spouse is that the union is “dead.” The Oriental Orthodox (Armenians, Syrians, Copts, and Ethiopians) observe a stricter discipline closer to that of the Roman Church.

Marriage is so sacred that God prefers we don’t even remarry after being widowed, He only allows it due to human weakness. But He does not allow divorce in any instance. In fact, when Jesus intensified the moral law, such as during the Sermon on the Mount, He was claiming divinity, because the Jews believed no one was above Moses except God. Thus, when the State, or Orthodox leaders, diminish Christ’s teaching they are setting themselves up as above Jesus Christ, even if inadvertently. God does not respect the two “free divorces” the Orthodox Churches grant to their believers. Either they were in invalid marriages, or they commit adultery when they remarry, regardless of what their Churches say.

As our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 19:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Since this is the law of Jesus, no Church can abrogate or change it. And the Church fathers completely agree, as ROCOR’s canon lawyers noted, which Fr. Barbour pointed out above. The Orthodox are non-orthodox on the topic of divorce, which is a critical topic. At this point, many Orthodox will object that Catholics behave similarly to the Orthodox by having annulments.

Firstly, annulments are not only a Catholic concept, and they were practiced since the time of the Apostles, unlike divorce and remarriage. Secondly, annulments are non-infallible. What this means is that if you lie to a Priest or Bishop to get an annulment, and you do not believe 100% in your heart that their declaration of nullity is founded on pure fact, you are not free to remarry anyway. If you do, you also commit adultery, despite the Church’s declaration of nullity. You could also be illicitly remarried after an annulment, even if you believe it’s findings are entirely accurate, if the reason a Priest or Bishop finds for nullity is not true. In this case, you would not be guilty of the sin of adultery, because you are invincibly ignorant of the truth, but you and your new “spouse” would live in a non-sacramental, invalid marriage until one of you died.

Finally, annulments are still frequently denied, and the reason the Church grants more now than in the past is because invalid marriages are sadly the norm in society. Too often, people repeat their marriage vows without believing in their heart that the bond is indissoluble, which can make the marriage invalid, as both individuals must believe in marriage indissolubility, and intend never to divorce no matter what happens (civil divorce is allowed in special circumstances, but not remarriage).

Since the Orthodox are not following Jesus, the Apostles, the Church Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils on the topic of divorce, they undermine their testimony. When mending the schism, we must ask, which brother is calling the other to greater holiness? In this case, Catholics are calling the Orthodox to the high standard set by Christ and preached by the Church Fathers. When we abrogate Christ’s commands on something, we are behaving like certain Protestants who claim baptism or repentance is not necessary for salvation. If you are deciding whether to become Orthodox or Catholic, don’t choose based on which Church is more lax on certain moral matters, read the Church Fathers. More importantly, consider what our Lord Jesus said. Let’s take a look at the Church Fathers though:

Hermas

“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

“In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts” (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband” (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her” (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Elvira

“Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive Communion” (Canon 8 [A.D. 300]).

“Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world” (Canon 9).

“If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death” (Canon 10).

Basil the Great

“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

“No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another” (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).

“You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’” (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).

Jerome

“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).

“Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives” (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Contraception

To his great credit, Fr. Josiah Trenham, an Antiochian Orthodox Priest whom I hold to be a hero of the Apostolic Faith, condemned the use of contraception. As Fr. Trenham said, “He [St. Chrysostom] never blesses—as a matter of fact, he explicitly castigates contraception. No Church Father, not a single one, has ever blessed artificial contraception. It’s very clear in our Tradition.” I love Fr. Trenham for saying this, and I wish all other Eastern Orthodox Christians believed this still. The Oriental Orthodox also condemn the Eastern Orthodox who practice contraception and view this Protestant development among them with disgust, and as a departure from the Apostolic Faith.

Until the 1930’s, not a single Christian group ever allowed contraception. It was seen as a grave sin, as severe as sodomy, or worse. Every single Protestant reformer agreed, such as John Calvin and Martin Luther. However, as a result of the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglicans became the first Christian group to allow contraception. Soon after, Protestants reneged their teachings on contraception, and one by one they all fell, until today, where next to no Protestant groups condemn it. We see this sadly playing out with LGBT beliefs among Protestants today, as one by one Protestant churches reject Christian teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism.

The contraceptive mindset leads people to see babies as a disease to be avoided, which is why it gave rise to the acceptance of abortion. It is not likely that abortion will ever be banned until the contraceptive mindset the Protestant Anglicans gave birth to is overcome. Thus, many Catholics (and some Orthodox) do blame Protestantism for giving rise to abortion. It does not help that some, such as the Southern Baptists, once ardently supported abortion.

However, some Orthodox Churches have decided to join with the Protestants on this issue, at least partially. Many Orthodox Churches, including the Church of Moscow, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Orthodox Church in America now allow “non-abortifacient” methods of birth control, such as condoms. This tragedy will make it sadly more difficult to mend the schism as Orthodox adopt contraception en masse, with the approval of their clergy. When Catholics use contraception of any kind, we teach that it is always a mortal sin (with very few exceptions for esoteric circumstances). One cannot receive the Eucharist without confessing and repenting of contraception use, including “coitus interruptus,” which Onan practiced.

Some Orthodox believers will object and say “Catholics allow NFP.” The thing is, Orthodoxy generally prefers the use of NFP as well over artificial birth control, and NFP is not contraception, it is abstinence . NFP can be difficult at times and requires sacrifice and suffering. It builds holiness. During fertile periods, Catholic and Orthodox couples practicing NFP can devote extra time to prayer and Bible study. Throwing a party and not letting in guests is certainly different from just not throwing a party at all, thus NFP and contraception are in no way related. Furthermore, NFP can also be sinful, if it is performed for selfish reasons, and there’s not a legitimate physical, mental, financial or other hardship behind it.

If you are a Protestant discerning Orthodoxy and Catholicism, you have to consider the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers as a guide. You’re considering leaving Protestantism for a reason - you want to follow what the original Christians did. The Catholic Church is unbending on this issue, because use of contraception is banned by infallible magisterial teaching. I promise you too that if NFP sounds hard or does not make sense, foregoing the use of contraception will have so many benefits that it will become crystal clear to a married couple why contraception is wrong and evil rather quickly. Many non-believers are starting to turn to NFP, eschewing big pharma’s harmful pills and contraptions.

Let’s see what some of the Church Fathers say about this topic, which many Orthodox have gone full-Protestant on:

John Chrysostom

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

“[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live” (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

“You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Caesarius of Arles

“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

Doctrines: Original Sin, Purgatory and the Filioque.

Both Orthodox believers and certain “rad trad” Catholics like to build artificial distance between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Sometimes one side or the other denies fundamentals of their own faith in order to create this distance. There are three areas where this occurs primarily. This is not condemning Orthodox believers in any way, this point is here simply to show that if you’re leaning towards Orthodoxy for any of these reasons, they’re not reasons to be Orthodox or Catholic.

Original Sin:

The Orthodox claim that the Latin Rite Catholic Church has an unbiblical view of original sin. Here is the truth:

In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin.

In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.

Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again dwell within man.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have profoundly affected the mainstream Catholic view of original sin, and if you read the Catechism you can see that the Orthodox view is now identical to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The scholastic, Western view isn’t wrong per se, but its terminology can lead to wrong conclusions. Furthermore, in Catholicism different theologies are allowed (Thomism, Molinism, Eastern expressions, etc), as long as there’s a total unity of doctrine.

Purgatory:

Purgatory is simply a modern Western term for something thought authoritatively since the Old Covenant.

“In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a state of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. Both Eastern and Western Churches have liturgies for the dead, private revelations that supposedly give insight into this transformational period, and believe the same doctrine.” - Dr. Anthony Dragani

The Eastern Catholic view is typically more positive than the Latin view that often amounts to “sit and suffer,” but the Church Fathers never gave us definitive answers on this topic.” Personally, the more I study both views, the more I see that the Latin Rite emphasizes the suffering due to distance from God, and the Eastern Churches emphasize achieving theosis through learning and struggle. Studying both gives you a more complete picture of “purgatory”, in my opinion.

The Filioque

This is a completely resolved issue, and anyone debating it in 2024 is either a newcomer to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, or has ill-intent as concerning Church unity. As Dr. Anthony Dragani explains:

In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue [of the Filioque]. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.” This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.

The Filioque, properly understood, is not heresy. It simply says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the son. Saying that the Spirit proceeds “through the Father and the Son” was never meant to imply that the Spirit originates with the Son, simply that it goes from the Father through the Son. No one is a heretic here, and the issue belongs in the trash. In the Byzantine Rite Churches, we do not include the Filioque in the Creed. This is not because it’s not true, it's because adding words to the Creed is undesirable, and we like to preserve ancient tradition.

As you can see, these three issues are simply off the table in 2024. Whether you become Orthodox or Catholic there is no doctrinal separation. You can also see through these three issues that the Latin Rite is very open to learning from the East, and that the Eastern Churches have theological heavyweights within the Vatican. Instead of a trend towards Latinization of the Eastern Churches, we now see a trend away from strict scholasticism in the Western Church. Creating artificial distance is a wicked act, whether done by Catholics or Orthodox.

Two Traditions = Both Lungs

I once heard a story about an immigrant Orthodox Russian woman who gifted her Catholic friend a book about St. Padre Pio, saying it was one of her favorites. The Catholic woman said “aren’t you Orthodox? Padre Pio is a Catholic saint.” The Russian woman replied in her thick accent, “my friend, GOD make saint!” And this is the truth.

Pope St. John Paul II once said “the Church must breathe with her two lungs.” He was referring to the need for total unity and full communion among the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. As an Eastern Catholic in the Byzantine Rite you get to enjoy this in a unique way. You inherit the theology, spirituality and ancient liturgy and practices of the East. While the Eastern Orthodox are typically slow to pull any traditions from the West, such as praying the Holy Rosary, you can “poach” whatever you like from the Treasures of the Catholic Church as a Catholic of any kind.

Many Eastern Catholics have some devotions that derive from the Latin Rite, such as praying the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet. The Eastern Churches have their own devotions, such as the “Prayer Rule of the Theotokos.” Byzantine Rite Catholics, especially those living in the West, are exposed to a multitude of Eastern and Western Saints and devotions. We “breathe with both lungs” here and now. Because we do not wholesale throw away St. Thomas Aquinas or treat him as a “heretic” as some Orthodox do, we can appreciate much of his teaching and leverage some of it to come to a better understanding of the overall truth. One reason I strongly prefer being a Byzantine Catholic over being Eastern Orthodox is because there is access to a richer and fuller spiritual treasure chest to draw from. The Eastern Catholic Churches have to protect their traditions and the integrity of their Rites, but healthy “cross pollination” yields strong fruit.

Orthodox Ecclesiology is Novel

The recent debate between Erick Ybarra and Ubi Petrus elucidates this well. Ybarra won the argument in the opening round simply because he came to defend an actual ecclesiology with roots in the ancient Church. This is despite the fact that very topic of the debate put Ybarra on the defensive from the outset. The crises among Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Russian Orthodox Churches highlights how bizarre and ahistorical the Orthodox concept of ecclesiology is. To dig more into this topic, I recommend watching the debate that I linked to.

A Defense of Pope Francis

A common refrain from many Orthodox is that Pope Francis is a “heretic” and a “liberal.” This is not helped by certain professing Catholics who claim the same thing. But the fact is, he is one of the most slandered people in the history of mankind. Almost nothing he is accused of turns out to be true.

Not pachamama idol worship

Not “gay relationship blessings”

Not “all religions are the same”

Nothing. None of it ever turns out to be based on fact, but he is slandered and his reputation harmed. If there is one criticism I have for the Holy Father it’s that he could more aggressively condemn his accusers and use less shy language. But I am not the Holy Father and since he has taken charge, the Catholic Church’s growth rate has significantly exceeded global population growth. The Church has become more conservative within the same time frame. If Pope Francis ever actually intended to liberalize the Church, the exact opposite has been occurring.

The fact of the matter is that Pope Francis was persecuted for being too conservative. The Jesuits put him into confinement for two years and even exiled him because he came down hard on liberation theology teachers within Argentina’s Catholic education system. He has suffered at the hands of leftists and rightwing extremists alike. It calls to mind the Fatima prophecy where the Pope was walking up a hill being fired on by arrows and bullets. One way to interpret this is that the arrows represent the rightwing extremists, as their projectile is the older one, and the bullets represent the leftwing extremists, as their projectile is more modern.

There are professing believers within the Church that are more political than spiritual. They want to pull the Church in their direction politically, as if the Holy Spirit respects the Overton Window. The try to manipulate the Overton Window by attacking the Pope like he is a US President. This is why such behavior is more common among ultra-politically polarized countries, such as the United States and France.

Liberalism among the Orthodox

Many professing Eastern Orthodox believers online will try to claim that the Catholic Church is “gay” and “liberal” and “filled with abuse.” The fact is the Catholic Church is as good or better than any other Church on the topic of abuse. Even at the height of the abuse crisis, Catholic clergy were not uniquely bad, but the Catholic Church was uniquely targeted by the media. Leftism might actually be a worse problem among the Orthodox, as I learned when I was exploring the Greek Orthodox Church in particular before becoming Catholic. In the very least, the Orthodox cannot claim to be any holier.

The following screenshots and comments are not meant to insult the Orthodox. They are simply to show the idea that the Orthodox are less liberal, and less plagued by wolves among the clergy, is mythology.

Here we see an Orthodox Church giving false “holy orders” to a woman. The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that women cannot be given holy orders. They can never be a Priest or Deacon. The deaconesses in the early Church were not equal to Deacons, and had no holy orders.

Here we see Archbishop Elpidophorus saying exactly what some have falsely accused Pope Francis of saying.

Here we see the same Archbishop scandalously celebrating a baptism for a gay couple’s children born of surrogacy.

Here we see him help raising funds for DNC, which supports abortion and child sex changes. Who is going to remove or severely limit this guy like the Pope did with the German bishops?

It is not only the Catholic Church they break from. Orthodox Churches do things among themselves, similar to Protestant groups.

While the Catholic Church is well-organized in South America and Africa, the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be very chaotic in certain countries.

You can read more about this heinous story on the BBC website. There is also the bizarre tale of the 2nd most powerful man within the Russian Orthodox Church and what is apparently his teenaged gay lover.

The point of all this is not to insult the Orthodox Churches or say they are worse than the Catholic Church. The point is that there are evil men who have snuck into the Orthodox Churches the same as the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox are in no way better overall when it comes to modernism or abuse. Thus, you should not become Eastern Orthodox just because you perceive the Orthodox as having less heretical modernists and less abusers. If you are a Catholic already, please don’t let the Orthodox slander our Church while ignoring the same log in their own eye.

The Papacy

The most prominent argument the Orthodox have against Catholicism is a rejection or minimization of Rome’s primacy. Without it, they have schismed among themselves several times, and have adopted heresies such as contraception and divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox criticize the Council of Trent and Vatican I for its stances on Papal authority (which sought to define and limit them), but as we can see, the Church Fathers arguably esteemed Papal authority higher than either Council:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Firmilian

“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

John Chrysostom

“For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (Treatise Concerning The Christian Priesthood, Book 2)

“In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (On the Inscription of the Acts, II, Chrysostom [c. 387]).

“Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep. (Homilies on John [21:15], 88.1). “If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John [21:19], 88.3).

“Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe.” (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom). “Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote [c. 387]).

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii).

“Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom).

“(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.” (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3).

“And yet when Peter, the leader of the apostles, said this to Him, "Be it far from thee Lord, this shall not happen unto Thee,” (On Matthew 26:39). “In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, ‘And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.).

“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’” (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep.” (Homilies on John, 88.1).

“Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Ibid). “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles… when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation…” (Homily 3).

“[After his repentance,] He [Peter] becomes again head of the Apostles and the whole world is committed to his care” (8th Discourse on the Jews).

“[after Peter gave his three fold confirmation of faith in the 21st chapter of John,] He restored him to his former dignity, and He handed over to him the authority [jurisdiction / επιστασιαν] of the Universal Church; greatest of all, He proved to us that he, of all the apostles, had the most love for the Master. "Peter," He asks him, "do you love me more than these?" This alone carries equal esteem as a virtues. (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 5)

“This Peter, and when I say Peter I mean the solid rock, the tranquil foundation, the great apostle, the first disciple, the first one called by Christ, and the first one who obeyed. He did something not trivial but exceedingly great—he denied the Master Himself. I am saying this not to accuse that righteous individual but to give you cause for repentance.” (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 3: Concerning Almsgiving and the Ten Virgins)

“In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i. 15) : Both as being ardent and as entrusted by Christ with the flock, . . . he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put in his hands; for to him Christ had said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren' (Hom. iii. in Act. Apost).”

“‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.” “This Linus [mentioned in 2 Timothy], some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” (Homily 10).

“What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith,” (Homily 54 on Matthew’s Gospel).

“And in those days," it says, "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said." (v. 15.) Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse.” (Homily 3 on Acts).

“I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily LIV).

“At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius).

Basil the Great

“Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.” (Against Eunomians).

Lacking the unifying force of the Papacy, the Orthodox have fallen into internecine schism and struggle time and time again. They will point to schismatic Western Church adherents as “proof” that Rome is wrong, such as sedevacantists and even the SSPX, but the issue there is those elements are also out of communion with Rome, and extremely small compared to the nearly 1.4 billion strong adherents to Catholicism that are in communion with Rome. And those Western groups that they point to to criticize Catholic unity have had internal schisms the same as the Eastern Orthodox have! The fact is, one is not a Catholic in good standing unless they are in full communion with the Pope and those in communion with him, so it doesn't matter what ex-Archibishop Vigano, Taylor Marshall or Bishop Strickland say. There will always be schismatics and quasi-schismatics, but we don’t have whole Churches out of communion with one another in Catholicism, just small fraternities and a handful of sedevacantists separating themselves from St. Peter.

The Papacy is a great strength of the Catholic Church. It proves the maximum that even a mediocre king is far better than no king time and time again. If you’re going to choose to be scandalized by Pope Francis, you have to also be scandalized by the equivalent or worse behavior of Orthodox Patriarchs. This includes Nestorius himself, a Calvinist that to this day the Orthodox struggle to grapple with and rewrite history because of how embarrassing it is, and multiple rubber stamps for tyrants of the Ottoman Empire and Russian government in its various forms over the past 200 years. Not only are there historical scandals that far rival the Pope Honorius controversy, but as we see, there are huge problems with Orthodox leadership today. There can be no unity without the Pope. Even a “bad” Pope is better than no Pope. And at the end of the day, it does not matter what we think about the Pope, it’s what Christ said about the Seat of Peter that matters, and the teachings of the Church Fathers.

Conclusion

As I stated, the purpose of this article was to help persuade people considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism to join the Catholic Church, and more specifically, a Byzantine Rite Church if they are attracted to the Eastern expression. Like the Orthodox, the Byzantine Rite has the Divine Liturgy, ordains married men to the priesthood, communes infants and honors the Eastern tradition. Unlike Orthodoxy, it is in full communion with the hundreds of millions of other Catholics around the globe, and St. Peter.

Do not let false notions about Eastern Orthodox purity and conservatism dissuade you from Catholicism. The Orthodox have at least as many abusers and liturgical abuses as the Catholic Latin Rite does. So it really comes down to whether or not you want a unified Church that agrees on what constitutes a valid baptism, with the ability to receive communion easily all over the globe, or you want a Church that has forsaken the Church Fathers on contraception and divorce, and forces limitations even on what Eastern Orthodox parishes you can receive communion in.

A final note - one thing some apologists will try to do is play the victim. While the Catholic Church’s leaders are certainly guilty of heinous crimes against the Eastern Orthodox, we own them. We have apologized for them several times. But let’s not forget the Eastern Orthodox have a myriad of tragedies and crimes as well that they have committed against Catholics.