No, I am not Orthodox

I had someone pose a question to me as to why I did not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, as, apparently, I have a great and apparent interest in the Christian East. It is true that there is much in Eastern Christianity that I think is good and right. I love icons. I do not have a major issue with the ideas of theosis and God's Essence and Energies. I do not find those concepts to be incompatible with Roman Catholic theology. 

There are several reasons I chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy, which was actually the first door I went knocking on when it was clear my Anglican days were coming to an end. I won't go into great length here, but I found the historical gaslighting that a lot of Orthodoxy does to be false. They pretend like they are the extra early Church with no development of doctrine. They have had just as much development of doctrine and practice in the East as the West has. Look no farther than the Iconoclastic controversy, which was a massive doctrinal and praxis shift after a several century time frame. Even the councils they had on how to write and use icons shifted drastically. I can give multiple examples of this.

I also found the severe practice of fasting to be rather Pharisaic. Look how Holy we are because we give up all these things all the time, often for weeks. Some fasting is good, don't get me wrong. But they were so self righteous about their practices, that really put me off. This is in itself a minor issue that I could have embraced, had it been the only issue, but, alas, it was not. 

Orthodoxy's lack of coherent moral theology also bothered me. On some issues, they are solid, but on most modern issues that the early Church never spoke uniformly or at all, Orthodoxy is often at a loss. I know a Orthodox priest that gave dispensations for things like birth control like candy. That bothered me as well.

I was also troubled by the way many Orthodox churches are too closely allied to ethnic identity and politics. It was like the ethnic identity trumped the Church, thereby rending its claim to being Catholic in the universal sense a bit suspect in my mind. You had to be Russian or Greek or whatever first, and then came Christ and the Church. If you were not 'of the blood' you were suspect out of the gate.

Now, please don't take this as a bashing of our Orthodox brethren. I have a great deal of respect for Orthodox theology on a great number of things. And I will grant that they don't put up with any of the liturgical hanky panky we see in some flaky Catholic Dioceses. They take the liturgy very seriously. So, this is just my conclusion after a long period of study of the issue.

All of these issues up to this point I could have come to terms with each in and of themselves. The real deal breaker, so to speak, for me and Orthodoxy was baptismal validity. Most Orthodox jurisdictions other than in some instances the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America do not recognize under any circumstance baptisms done in virtually any other denomination. I don't think they even accept the validity of Catholic baptisms in a lot of jurisdictions. If they do, it's kicking and screaming. 

Their thinking, as I understand it, is that all Protestants are heretics and heretical baptisms, even if done in the proper form, are invalid carte blanche. And I also believe, as I understand it, most baptisms done in the Catholic church because they view the Catholic Church to be in schism from Holy Orthodoxy are likewise invalid. As I understand it (and this was what was explained to me by an Orthodox archpriest) is that if you convert to the Orthodox church, you have to be rebaptized (or baptized for the first time as they put it) regardless of circumstance. Again, the Antiochians being the one exception, as they play a bit more fast and loose with baptismal validity than most other Orthodox churches as I understand it.

Now, I understand that Confirmation (or Chrismation as they refer to it) and other sacraments are viewed as invalid because they have to require apostolic succession. I don't disagree that in my case coming from Anglicanism that other Sacraments were of at least dubious validity given the historical factors at play with Henry VIII, et al. I did not necessarily have an issue with that. However, being a former Anglican minister who did a lot of baptisms, I really had problems with Orthodoxy saying that all baptisms I performed were de facto invalid and everyone I baptized basically was going to hell for not being baptized.

Having witnessed some of the truly grace filled moments I saw doing baptisms, I just cannot accept that those baptisms were all just a fool's errand of a heretic. I just at the end of the day could not go there. There was a lot of things that I truly liked and agreed with in Orthodoxy, but that was a theological bridge too far because it negates the idea of Baptism or Blood or Baptism of Desire. It also says that lay people even in emergencies can't perform baptisms. That was the deal breaker in the end because that was a form of doctrinal fundamentalism that I just couldn't square with the core theological attributes of God being a Just and Loving God.

Again, please do not take this as a bashing of Orthodoxy. Far from it. I do have my days where I think perhaps I made a theological mistake and should have gone to the East instead of Rome. But, as a sacramental son of John Henry Newman's Oxford Movement, when I left Anglicanism, I really had only a few options: Rome or Orthodoxy. I picked the route that seemed to make the most sense to me. 

I pray it was the right choice.