In 2017, nationally syndicated radio host Hank Hanegraaff and his wife converted to Orthodox Christianity at St. Niktarios Greek Orthodox Church. That name may not mean anything to most Catholics, but to former Evangelicals such as myself, the “Bible Answer Man,” was a fixture of many a car ride; in my case, with my father, who listened to little else but Evangelical radio. “I am now a member of an Orthodox church,” Hanegraaf explained at the time. “but nothing has changed in my faith.”
It’s not just Evangelicals who are leaving the Protestant ranks for Orthodoxy. Blogger and author Rod Dreher of “Benedict Option” fame left the Catholic Church to become Orthodox in 2006. According to Catholic apologist and YouTuber Michael Lofton, many Catholics frustrated with the various crises and controversies in the Catholic Church are turning to Orthodoxy, which they perceive as a more stable ancient Christian tradition, less prone to the liturgical changes and alleged doctrinal innovations of Catholicism. Lofton is himself a reverted Catholic, having left the Church he entered in 2012 for Orthodoxy, only to return a few years later.
Given his experiences, Lofton is well-equipped to engage Orthodox arguments against Catholicism in his new book Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East. Divided into three sections on doctrine, history, and liturgy, the book aims to address the most popular and persuasive arguments Catholics will hear when contemplating Orthodoxy. Anyone interested in understanding contemporary Catholic-Orthodox debates will be well served by this concise and accessible text.
Lofton presents an interesting, often overlooked observation: until the eight century, the Eastern Church had already spent a significant amount of time outside communion with Rome. Citing Orthodox scholar Fr. Alexander Schmemann and historian Louis Duchesne, Lofton notes that from the Roman emperor Constantine (early fourth century) to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), the Eastern Church was in schism with Rome for more than 200 years over various dogmatic and theological disagreements, most Christological in nature. Thus, though the “Great Schism” is designated as occurring in 1054, tensions were high centuries before.
Orthodox apologists will argue ecumenical councils rejected the claim that the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. But when the papal legate Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon called the Roman bishop “the head of all the churches,” he encountered no protests from Eastern bishops. When Pope Hadrian’s letter to Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople—referring to the Apostolic See of Rome as “the head of all the churches of God”—was read aloud before the fathers at the Second Council of Nicaea, Tarasios and the other Council fathers responded: “We follow, accept, and approve them.”
Some Orthodox argue that papal infallibility undermines the authority of councils, as if having two separate organs of magisterial authority is contradictory. Lofton, rightly, notes that this is a practical, rather than doctrinal objection, since it presumes that God would necessarily do things in the most practical means possible. Moreover, Scripture presents examples of different authorities that act on behalf of God: the writings of Scripture itself, the words of prophets, the words of Christ, and the seat of Moses, among others. Are we in a position to tell God which of these mechanisms is the most practical, or that He should have just chosen one?
Another popular Orthodox objection is that the early Church fathers did not teach the filioque— the clause translated “and the son” that began appearing as an addition to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the late sixth century, and eventually became the standard across the Catholic Church. Yet Lofton demonstrates this is simply not accurate: St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Leo the Great, and Fulgentius of Ruspe all affirmed language that conforms to the doctrine presented in the filioque clause.
Lofton is unafraid to acknowledge and discuss the dirty laundry of Catholic history, such as the oft-cited example of the Third Council of Constantinople, which condemned a previous pope, Honorius I (625-638), for allegedly holding to Monothelitism, the heresy that Jesus had only one will. Pope Honorius, in a letter replying to a question from Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, did indeed write: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” However, there is some debate over whether or not Honorius meant the moral or physical will of Christ; in other words, whether or not his two wills were in agreement. Indeed, Pope John IV (640-642) interpreted Honorius this way, as did St. Maximus the Confessor.
Moreover, there was already an acknowledgment in the patristic age that not everything decreed by ecumenical councils was infallible, meaning that the Third Council of Constantinople could have made a historical error in judging Honorius. And, perhaps most problematic for Orthodox, the Council fathers had declared that the Roman Church to be indefectible, and that all of the pope’s predecessors, including Honorius, had preserved the faith. Were the Council fathers then contradicting themselves?
Lofton’s analysis leads to the emergence of some trends regarding the various disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox. One is that many Orthodox appeals to early Church fathers and councils are ad hoc. For example, the aforementioned Third Council of Constantinople and Maximus the Confessor are both cited to bolster various Orthodox positions; but, as Lofton shows, both affirm Catholic positions, such as papal infallibility. Again, many Orthodox take issue with Catholic teaching on purgatory, but this leads to Orthodox denials of their own Church councils—and, ironically, Orthodox theology still affirms a concept analogous to purgatory.
Or consider the Orthodox argument that papal claims to preeminent authority are reliant on forgeries including the Donation of Constantine, a fake eighth-century document supposedly showing the fourth-century emperor Constantine giving the pope jurisdiction over all other bishops. But there is plenty of evidence prior to the eighth century that Christians, both in the East and West, acknowledged the supremacy of the Roman see. And, quite ironically, many in the East actually accepted the forged document, including eleventh-century patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius and twelfth-century patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon!
Another trend is that many debates amount to little more than a difference of terminology: for example, the debate over whether or not there is such a thing as “created grace,” or whether or not there is such a thing as development of doctrine. Or consider the semantics of the Orthodox objection that the priest is not the one forgiving sins, but Jesus—both Catholics and Orthodox priests use passive and active language in the rite of confession, which would suggest this is a distinction without a difference.
I have one minor criticism of this book: Lofton’s writing sometimes has a pedantic quality to it, frequently ending chapters not just by summarizing his position, but telling the reader what he or she should do with the information. For example, at the end of one chapter, Lofton writes: “When Catholics discerning Eastern Orthodoxy encounter this objection from the Orthodox, they should ask whether the person making the objection is being consistent.” Well, sure, shouldn’t we always ask whether the premises of an argument are consistently applied? This is a bit like me telling you that when you read an article, you should contemplate if there might be any errors in it—because if it does, that might undermine the argument of said article!
Perhaps, however, some people need this kind of rhetorical hand-holding, and they could do far worse than be guided by this well-informed and incisive book.
Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East
By Michael Lofton
Catholic Answers, 2023
Softcover, 198 pages
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I am wondering where the Eastern Churches came down in the history of the Arian heresy.
Are the differences between Eastern Orthodox theological positions and pre-Vatican-II Catholic theological positions greater than the differences between pre-Vatican-II Catholic theological positions and the post-Vatican II “Catholic” positions now being foisted on us by Pope Francis? Should the understandably confused Catholic of today today stay with the post-Vatican II “Catholic” positions now being foisted on us by Pope Francis?
The only answer to the dilemma faced by the understandably confused Catholic of today would seem to be to stay with the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith as they were before Vatican II muddied them with the heresy of modernism and Pope Francis added to the confusion (and the mud) by imposing his Synodality-Church nonsense on us.
Why, for the love of God, must every article come down to some spurious claim of rupture between the Church before the Council and the Church after the Council? Just enjoy the article.
So well said Anon. And even if the article wasn’t enjoyable (not referring to this one).
Contrary to Deacon Dom, some of the articles can be “non-conservative”. They still can have their own insights and so “Who’s putting them down?” Other times “conservative” articles while well written, nonetheless miss the simplest ideas. My point to Deacom Dom is that the readership is discerning; the writers are discerning; and the Editors who are discerning, are in addition both capable and flexible. When the writers pen something it is not saying they’ve gotten all walled in with it. The assessment the reader should make mustn’t run to this conclusion – “walled up writer”. I confess I have to struggle sometimes not to do that myself.
Considering the range of issues, topics, personages, viewpoints and “drums”, the Editorship is remarkable and comprise a very patient group of individuals. That’s my impression of it.
Dear Anon,
Largely for the love of God. The article mentions that many Catholics, confused by the present confused state of the Catholic Church, are thinking about turning to Eastern Orthodoxy. They need a reason to stay in the Church that Jesus founded. They don’t have such a reason given their understandable confusion over what the Catholic Church stands for today. I tried to give them a reason to stay with the Church as Jesus founded it (in other words the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church). I assumed that the author of the article had the same purpose in mind.
Viva Cristo Rey.
A bit prickly, are we?
Thank you for this essay. Excellent. However, I am waiting to see what response there is to it. I am often reminded by various writers and responders who constantly criticize Pope Francis I that Christ is the head of the Church (which He is) and not the Pope so let us see if these same people support the teaching authority of the Pope as the ultimate head which the Orthodox reject.
This book by Michael Lofton is really to be recommended for many ultra traditionalists who are the constituent consumers of CWR. The followers of Lofton’s YouTube channel “Reason and Theology” are mostly of the exact opposite of CWR’s. They should get and read this short and easily readable book. The Orthodoxy heresies outlined here in many ways parallel that of the present day radical deformed traditionalist ideology and many of the schismatic movements that emerged throughout Church history. Many pseudo-traditionalists today show signs of the historical heresies like many of the Orthodoxy ones presented in this book that in their mistaken belief of supposed defense of Catholic tradition they have privileged access to Catholic tradition and their dissent against Pope Francis or Vatican II is justifiable. Most rebellious traditionalist Catholics explicitly or implicitly cite the standard Protestant and Orthodoxy false teaching about the Catholic Church going into “apostasy” with the present pontificate. Many rigid traditionalists do not know or refuse to accept the fact that the Lord Jesus through the Holy Spirit constantly and consistently assists all successors of St. Peter in leading and governing the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church 892; Luke 22:32; Matthew 28:20; John 16:13).
“for many ultra traditionalists who are the constituent consumers of CWR….”
Your omniscience is impressive, but not convincing in the least. If you’re basing your take on the comments section, it’s a bad take. CWR, on a daily basis, averages 12,000-20,000 pageviews. We get comments from about 20 different people on a daily basis. Some are those are from folks who are traditionalist; many of them are not (I know some of them personally).
Plus, the articles at CWR are not “ultra-traditionalist” in the sense that you clearly indicate. They are Catholic.
But, you have a narrative. And a little drum. Have fun.
A VERY little drum, that is.
As surely one of the retrogrades smoked out by the omniscient De-con Dom, yours truly is pleased to meditate today—very much in communion with Pope Francis—on the second reading in the Liturgy of the Hours, from St. John of the Cross:
“…In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets in various ways and manners; but now in our times, the last days, he has spoken to us in his Son [all italics]. In effect, Paul is saying that God has spoken so completely through his own Word that he chooses to add nothing. Although he had spoken but partially through the prophets he has now said everything in Christ. He has given us everything, his own Son.
“Therefore, anyone who wished to question God or to seek some new vision or revelation from him would commit an offense, for instead of focusing his eyes entirely on Christ he would be desiring something other than Christ, or beyond him.
“God could then answer: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear him [italics]. In my Word I have already said everything. Fix your eyes on him alone for in him I have revealed all and in him you will find more than you could ever ask for or desire.”
Yea, verily, parsing Shakespeare: “the fault lies not in our pope, but in ourselves,” or maybe in those favored court jesters who would insert too much of a freelance spirit into the fertile “principle” that “time is greater than space” (Evangelii Gaudium). Late in the day, Francis has been forced to rebuketh the German “non-synod” that hath crashed the Synod in Rome!
The horse’s sass is now inside the barn, or whatever.
Of course the Holy Spirit indwells the Church, but history also shows that this Presence doth not erase gifted/human free will, nor preclude imperfect judgment, or governance, or appointments, or ad-libbing, or whatever.
But, as you freely accuse, “who am I—or you—to judge?” Or, whatever.
You flatter me, Deacon Dom.
🙂
I like to think of myself as one who values tradition but not everyone agrees. I’m glad you do.
Deacon Dom,
Please take your sophistries back to Lofton’s website. When the Pope changes the Catechism to say the precise opposite of what it said in the first edition on the death penalty, when he says the divorced and remarried can receive communion without a firm purpose of amendment in direct contradiction to previous papal teaching, when the former prefect for the Congregation of the Faith says that he is teaching material heresies, then there is a problem. And take your papolatry with you.
Lofton is the greatest salesmen for Orthodoxy this side of the Atlantic. Stay bootlicking
Being obedient is so crucifying. Just ask Our Lord. Even Peter tried running away from the Cross to avoid the authority Christ won for him to serve His Mystical Body.
It was Hell trying to be my own Pope. Pope Francis is a knucklehead, but he is my knucklehead. I would be glad to reject papal authority if I was infallible. The Pope and I are stuck with each other.
Stay Catholic.
I like Casey chalk so I will take his analysis of Mr. Lofton.s book at face value….I am sure Casey know’s about the on going debates between Lofton and supposed trads….having watched those videos I can say the attacks on a lot of those people by Mr Lofton are un warranted by and large…when disagreeing g with scott Hahn over some trivial matters warrants a section on his pod cast I am a bit dubious of his claims…Hahn is not the only on he attacks…I think when Mr Lofton hears the word orthodox he goes into a frenzy even when used in the term ” orthodox catholic “…however I trust this book is balanced because it talks about the orthodox as in Eastern and not other catholics devout or otherwise…..
Casey Chalk presents us with knowledge and insight that are the cause of dissension, but also as historically analyzed the possible means of reunification.
Behind the great schism is the ‘dethronement’ of Greek Christianity, the Greeks who provided among the finest of the early fathers. Gospels were written in Koine Greek, except perhaps Mt and Aramaic. Greek was the language of the Church and theology. Then the two great Apostles gave their final witness in Rome.
Rome, the center of the universe so to speak, conqueror, ruler of the known world was suited to rapidly transmit the Word. Rome, once Christianity’s arch enemy, following the Apostles martyrdom, followed by many others finally becomes the disciple. Pride, a sense of injustice that hated Rome should become Christianity’s center, instead of Athens or Corinth seems an unfortunate, all too human factor. Constantinople made the effort, after all the empire shifted East where it remained in power long after the fall of Rome. That presumed primacy didn’t survive with the advance of Christianity’s new enemy, Islam.
Hope for reuniting remains. The theological issues are intellectually nuanced sufficiently to discuss and resolve.
Just so we’re clear, Islam rose up against the Eastern Roman Empire in the 600’s, centuries prior to the schism. After that, it was another 400 years until the actually took Constantinople. Good thing Catholic Church in Rome never became the political plaything of a secular state. Also this statement, “Pride, a sense of injustice that hated Rome should become Christianity’s center, instead of Athens or Corinth seems an unfortunate, all too human factor”, lmao. Athens was a backwater for most of the later Roman period, what are you even talking about? The people looking into Orthodoxy will see this nonsense and just leave.
That doesn’t detract from the substance of Father Morello’s point. Greek pride certainly played a role in the schism.
Both Rome and Constantinople are mistake; the real head of Christianity was the Bishop of Jerusalem who’s first leader was the brother Jesus, James. Both Paul and Peter answered to James and got his blessing before they left to preach. The primacy of Rome or Constantinople are political fabrication.
I think we are in no place to critique Eastern Orthodoxy right now. Our house is in such disarray that it would probably be best to first remove the plank from our own eye than worry about the speck in the eye Orthodoxy.
Lofton’s approach seems to rest in “document/syllogism Catholicism”. He seems to ignore the reality that most Catholics encounter in their dioceses and parishes which then makes them explore Eastern Orthodoxy or Traditionalism. Yup, the Catechism may say this and that but if my pastor, bishop or even the Pope is saying the opposite then it doesn’t really matter what those documents say do they? Its a type of “fantasy football” Catholicism. Like my practicing Orthodox friend once said to me…”The Catholicism in your books is very different than the one in your churches.” To me, that experience is what needs to be addressed if Lofton is going to stop people from going to Orthodoxy (or SSPX). What Council so and so said in the 8th century is of little concern when your parish or school is teaching heterodox things and the liturgy is embarrassingly banal or disrespectful.
Moreover, Lofton seems to have tried every denomination and rite under the sun. I am sure he is an expert on all them. I think a line from “A Man for All Seasons” may apply to Lofton…
Sir Thomas More: [to Will Roper] Now, listen, Will. Two years ago you were a passionate churchman. Now you’re a passionate Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again.