Can anyone recommend some books refuting Eastern Orthodox theology that conflict with Catholic theology?

[PhillipJ]

Hi Holly,

I just spent quite a bit of time putting together what I hoped would be a helpful response to you, and suddenly it disappeared and I had to re-log in again. So rather than spend that time again, I would recommend looking at the Wikipedia page for Eastern Orthodoxy. There’s a very helpful portal on the right sidebar. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get the full story of Church history and facts both Western and Eastern. I’m sure some disagree, (BTW I entered the Catholic Church 25+ years ago and I embrace the Catholic faith in its entirety)… I would refer them to St. Mark 9:38-40 for meditation. I think you’re engaged in what can be a very fruitful endeavor. So am I :>) I am going down the very same path that you are.I think we can find as many helpful books and info venues on the web as there are opinions on this website… I don’t know about you, but I can’t afford $29.95 plus S&H every time I need an answer :>) I have admonished myself, and I bet you have too, to proceed prayerfully, charitably and begging God that His will ONLY be done. Some Catholics may be upset that you or I "dare’ to look for historical ecclesiastical truth outside the walls of western catholicism. Perhaps they are justified in that… or perhaps they feel somewhat threatened by that… I don’t know?! But we live in the "Wild West Christendom of the last 1000 or so years (even much more wild these days), and a very dark and deceitful, devilish world. If the post-Vat II Popes encourage dialogue and unity/peace with the Orthodox brothers, then we’re just following their example. I am enthralled and deeply humbled by the awesomeness of the Eastern Liturgy. A Catholic priest showed me a video of their Divine Liturgy.

God Bless you in your faith and longings,

PJ

 

[LayingHands]

I can’t really help you because I am of the opinion that there are no essential differences between the apostolic Churches. There are theological distinctions (theology being man’s attempt to express Divine Truth), which some (or many) on both sides of the fence may use as causes for separation.

It’s not a matter of refuting each other’s theology, but of understanding each other’s theology. I’ve found that those who try to “refute” on either side inevitably end up merely misrepresenting the other side.

Having said that, I do often find myself refuting misconceptions of Catholicism. As I’ve often stated, my own journey to the Catholic Church did not consist of a repudiation of my own Faith as an Oriental Orthodox, but merely of repudiating the misconceptions I had about the Catholic Church.

I also commend you for looking at both sides of the matter openly and honestly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think another poster mentioned it previously, but I would caution you not to read Solovyov. In the excitement for seeing somebody who converted from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism, Catholics seem to overlook the fact that he was a believer in Sophiology, a heretical movement which mixed Christian, Buddhist, Greek Pagan, New Age, and Gnostic thought.

 

[PhillipJ]

Deacon Lance wrote:" can’t recommend any becasue I don’t know that anyone has ever bothered to publish one. If you would like to review some material that reconciles Eastern and Latin theology I recommend:…"

Hi Deacon Lance,

With regard to the reconciliation of the E and L theologies, I hope the following excerpt I’ve included here from a Wikipedia dialogue page on Eastern Orthodoxy sheds some light…

"Hubert Cunliffe-Jones identifies two opposing views regarding the filioque: a ‘liberal’ view and a ‘rigorist view’. The ‘liberal’ view of the filioque controversy sees it as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a “plurality of theologies”. Each side went astray in considering their theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different theologoumena or theological perspectives. Whereas all Christians must be in agreement on questions of dogma, there is room for diversity in theological approaches.[5]
However, this ‘liberal view’ is vehemently opposed by those whom Cunliffe-Jones identifies as holding a ‘rigorist’ view. According to standard Orthodox position, as pronounced by Photius, Mark of Ephesus and modern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, the filioque question hinges on fundamental issues of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply one of different theologoumena. Many in the ‘rigorist’ camp consider the filioque to have resulted in the role of the Holy Spirit being underestimated by the Western Church and thus leading to serious doctrinal error.[6]

I really think someone should “bother” to enter into the historical and ecclesiastical differences of Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism. Even though Catholic, I don’t “write off” Eastern Orthodox facts and historical truthfulness.To pretend that the difficulty with the millennium-long division in the Ancient Church is just a matter of some theological musings that really have no bearing on ecclesiatical reality is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Where’s the charity in that?

I don’t claim any advanced degrees or national bestsellers, so please temper your response accordingly, if you feel the need to respond. I hope this thread will be useful to all involved.

In Christ Our Lord,

PhillipJ

 

[Vico]

…I just spent quite a bit of time putting together what I hoped would be a helpful response to you, and suddenly it disappeared and I had to re-log in again…

That happened to me many times, so now I write the post in notepad, paste it in when ready, preview first (important), and then post.

 

[PhillipJ]

Thank you, Vico. That’s a great idea !

Sincerely, in Christ,

PhillipJ