Every now and then, I will get an inquiry about “why Eastern Orthodoxy and not Eastern Catholicism?” I will present my problems regarding why I did not choose Eastern Catholicism, also called Uniates. I am focusing solely upon Uniatism in this article and not my other objections to basic Roman Catholicism itself such as the filioque, the papacy, etc. That will have to be for another time. This is not meant to be an attack on my fellow Roman Catholic friends, just my explanation for why. May God preserve love and truth in my words in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
A Few Reasons I Refused Uniatism
When I was looking deeper into Christianity before becoming an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I explored various denominations such as Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Catholicism. The most glaring reasoning for why I did not choose Eastern Catholicism is I believe it inevitably leads to relative truth.
Some say the birth of Eastern Catholicism was the Council of Florence in 1438, where there was an attempted reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. This was outright rejected by the faithful of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nevertheless the inklings of this were born (Pogodin, 1963). Rome accepted any eastern church that would submit to the Pope and could retain their own customs/practices.
This new phenomenon, most prevalent starting in the 19th century (however I am aware of varying degrees starting in the 13th century), allows Roman Catholics to choose between either one. It becomes “what do I prefer?” instead of “what is the actual right way?” Now some may immediately retort, “it’s just different liturgical practices” but it’s more than that, and that’s not my dispute. It becomes a theological difference between Latin Rite and Eastern Rite, leading to relative truth.
Infant communion? Yeah just pick whatever rite you prefer. Thomism or Palamism? The choice is yours. Venerate saints that condemn the Papacy? Not a problem. The truth now sits with the individual instead of the Church. All of these examples are not reconcilable. And if you as a Roman Catholic, advocate for either one of these examples as the right way you now have a contradiction in your own belief system and relative truth. Because the same people who are entirely Roman Catholic like you in your worldview, believe something other than the right way.
My second issue is ecumenism done incorrectly and incoherently with the Pope as the symbol of unity. Of course there is overlap with some truth in other groups but the fullness is only in one place. You can see this also in the Roman Catholic acceptance of other Eucharists being valid. If Christ is with the Eastern Orthodox, the Orientals, etc then why even be Roman Catholic? I can find Him wherever I want, emphasis on I. The assertion of a valid Eucharist in other groups nullifies any reason to even become Catholic.
Furthermore, Rome is emphatic that Eastern Orthodox are schismatics yet how does a schismatic have the Eucharist? Some may immediately retort “this is just the overlap of truth” that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but Christ is Truth itself, the fullness. By saying another group has the Eucharist you are saying they have the full truth. This is why as an Eastern Orthodox, the Eucharist fully valid is only found within the Holy Orthodox Church. And why no Eucharistic sacrament is valid outside of Orthodoxy. These are not simply small “t” traditional differences, these are big “T” theological differences.
The retort from opponents will most likely be, “but there are sacraments outside the church such as the Church recognizing some baptisms as valid and others not throughout history.” This is another topic itself, but I would respond that you’ll find nowhere where the Eucharist is recognized as valid as anywhere outside of the Church. In fact, it is the symbol by which a Church is known as in communion with the other Churches. In Roman Catholicism in general, including Uniatism, the Pope becomes the central figure of unity instead of Christ in the Eucharist.
Thirdly, saint veneration. For Uniates, you can venerate saints like St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Photius, or St. Gregory Palamas who vehemently opposed the papacy. Unam Sanctum states there is no salvation for those who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Boniface, 1302). These saints clearly and emphatically did not submit to the Roman Pontiff, but are treated as having salvation in sainthood by Uniates. This is a completely incoherent position.
Perhaps a Roman Catholic would point to “invincible ignorance,” a doctrine in Catholicism where someone is not morally culpable for ignorance regarding the Papal claims or Roman Catholicism. However, this is clearly not the case with the saints I just mentioned, they are aware fully of the papal claims and fight against them.
Fourthly, Thomism or Palamism. Uniates have the option to freely proclaim either one, however both are irreconcilable in understanding God. Palamism is the correct theology, Thomism is not. The doctrine of uncreated energies in Palamism cannot mix with the created energies/grace of Thomism. Again, these are not small issue differences such as something like a vestment liturgical difference, these are immense theological discrepancies that cannot co-exist.
Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejects any distinction between the energies and the essence of God unlike St. Gregory Palamas. Thomism has been argued to have led to the Enlightenment and then inevitably to Atheism itself, and it’s a compelling argument. “If all that is ever known of God are created effects in this life, or if God is placed on a continuum of “being” where the divine essence is likened to created being, then it makes no sense to believe in this God, especially when the starting point for theology is empirical. How could empirical sense-data ever give any “evidence” for a being that, even according to Thomas’ definition of divine simplicity, bears no real relation to created being?” (Dyer, 2013).
The created effects espoused by Aquinas lead to Atheism, because if God’s uncreated energies are impossible to be experienced then it becomes impossible to experience God Himself. The sacraments become created grace, and ultimately it leads to the question of how can Christ take on human nature and fully deify it in this view? It can’t. Becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) becomes an impossibility in Thomism. If we can’t experience God Himself, naturally why even be Christian? Thus, Atheism ensues.
Fifthly, the way in which conversion was done, usually heavily coercive from the Roman Church. The Union of Brest being one example, where the term Uniate really became prominent, as Orthodox bishops chose to reunify with Rome under growing pressures from the authorities in Poland and from the Jesuits who entered in 1564. (OrthodoxWiki). This is a form of proselytizing, and every group has some form of history of it to varying degrees. However I could argue that Uniatism relied on it.
A similar situation occurred with the Union of Uzhorod where after 600 years of the Carpathians being Orthodox, pressure from the Austro-Hungarian Empire coerced them by means primarily of financial pressure to join the Roman Catholic Church in the form of Uniates. It resulted in the establishment of the “Greek Catholic Church” and these new Uniates were now given more material and monetary assistance for submitting to Rome unlike those who chose to remain Orthodox, it often meant a life as an impoverished vassal.
These coercive measures of financial pressure to become Roman Catholic clearly swayed those weak in the faith who were seeking a better life for them and their families. I highly question the validity of the majority of these conversions, and if any would have happened at all without financial pressure. Uniatism is a false union, a false blending of East and West.
To me personally, Eastern Catholicism wants the aesthetic of Orthodoxy without what it truly entails. They want the liturgical aspects, the eastern iconography, the Orthodox cross, etc. It’s an appearance on the outside but not the inside. It’s an intermixing where truth becomes relativized within it, basically anything goes as long as you submit to the Pope.
References
Boniface, Pope. (1302). Unam Sanctum. Papal Encyclicals Online. <https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm>
Dyer, J. (2013). From Thomism to Enlightenment Deism/Atheism.<https://jaysanalysis.com/2013/08/22/from-thomism-to-enlightenment-deismatheism/>
Pogodin, A. (1963). St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence. Holy Trinity Monastery.
St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. (2008). The Orthodox Study Bible. Thomas Nelson, Inc.