Whelton book review: Audi alteram partem - Part 2

Two notes on Whelton's Introduction

[If you haven’t already, we recommend first reading the Introduction to this series.]

Whelton’s introduction (“An Insistent Call”) is largely a recounting of his personal journey away from Catholicism and towards Eastern Orthodoxy. While this series aims to scrutinize Whelton's reasons and arguments, two aspects from his autobiography call for special attention.

Firstly, a casual reader might glean from Whelton’s account the notion that something called “Eastern Orthodoxy” stands as the singular opposition to Catholicism. However, the reality is far more complicated than that.

There are many national autocephalous churches, including Greece and Russia, as well as those in communion with them. Historical and jurisdictional disputes caused ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) to be out of full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate until 2007. And the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, granted autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2019, is currently the occasion for a deep rift between the Greek and Russian Churches.

Beyond these, the Assyrian Church of the East (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian) and the Oriental Orthodox Church, separated over Christological heresies in the 5th century, are not in communion with each other, the Catholic Church, or any others.

There are also Old Calendarists or True Orthodox Church adherents, encompassing various groups and jurisdictions, all of whom reject the revised calendar and deem the autocephalous churches as schismatic and tainted by the heresy of ecumenism (among other flaws).

Lastly, numerous Eastern Churches or “uniates”—e.g., the Maronite and Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches—are in communion with the Catholic Church.

Notably, Whelton omits any explanation for choosing his particular Eastern Church over others. It is likely that he never explored the distinctions between his choice and, for instance, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or why he would choose the one over the other.

Secondly, the impetus for his conversion was discontent with the changes in the West following the Second Vatican Council. Disheartened by radical alterations to the liturgy, he and his wife were drawn to an Orthodox Church, captivated by its beauty and devotion. This initiated a process of study that eventually led to his rejection of Catholic beliefs and acceptance of certain historical narratives about the Catholic Church, which will be addressed in due course.

While, as a Catholic, I share his dismay over liturgical abuses permitted (or even encouraged) by bishops, we must remember that abusus non tollit usum—the abuse of something does not negate its proper use. Moreover, the presence of scandal does not excuse any faulty reasoning, inaccurate history, or biased interpretations on Whelton's part.

If Eastern Orthodox proponents like Whelton intend to highlight scandals or departures from tradition to criticize the Catholic Church, they must also consider their own histories, such as in 1721 when Tsar Peter I abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow, implementing a “Holy Synod” based partially on Lutheran ecclesiastical structures and governed by laymen. Those sweeping changes impacted every facet of religious life and practice, enduring nearly two centuries until the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, after which the Patriarch was restored and the Russian Church for decades was compromised and infiltrated by Soviet Communism. Nothing was spared, including parts of the liturgy and readings which were altered to align with communist ideology.

Betrayed by their bishops, scandalized by corrupted liturgy, persecuted by the state—in spite of all that, many Russians remained faithful to their native Church, even if they died before better times prevailed. If Whelton and others laud such fidelity, why do they emphasize recent events to attract the wandering and confused among the Catholic laity? It seems disingenuous to exploit Catholic discontent, attempting to lure individuals away from their tradition during these challenging days.

For it must needs be that scandals come… (Matthew 18:7)

After 2000 years of history, the Church is no stranger to upheaval, scandal, and corruption. These are problems for everyone. Ultimately, we must engage with principles, doctrines, and historical claims, and it is to these matters that we now turn.

The road ahead

In the next post, at long last, we evaluate several assertions in Whelton’s introduction. After that, we proceed with a rebuttal to Whelton’s claims in his first chapter about Matthew 16 and the Church Fathers.