Catholic book about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

[mwmroe]

Does anyone know a simple to understand book, written by a Catholic, who explains the differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? So much of what I’ve found seems to be written from an Orthodox perspective with an attitude of dislike or contempt for the Catholic Church very similar to many Protestants. I thought they’d be a little more respectable. But there seems to be a lot of bad blood there. And I also get the impressions that Catholic’s don’t feel the same way about them. They would prefer to see unity between the two faiths. I haven’t found much of anything from a Catholic point of view that would be considered contemptuous towards the Orthodox Church. There just seems to be silence on the part of the Catholic Church. At least that’s my impression.

 

[Roman_Army]

Surely, there has to be a more friendlier book about Eastern Orthodoxy written by Orthodox. I would not think all Orthodox have contempt for the Catholic Church. In every Church there are bigots, but there are also very nice people too that are very friendly and open to the possibility of unity. I would say that there probably is a book “for dummies” that might be good. I heard “Catholicism for Dummies” was a good book, maybe that same company has an “Orthodoxy for Dummies” that might be good.

 

[Aramis]

There really isn’t much from this side of the aisle.

The reason why is that, for the greatest part of things, the perceived differences that many orthodox claim don’t really exist!

Secondarily, the majority of differences that do exist between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches also exist between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Catholic Churches, which happen to be part of the Catholic Church.

There are significant differences between Roman ecclesiology and the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. But many of those differences are also held in the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

The primary differences are in clerical roles; again, these are mirrored in the Byzantine Catholic Churches as well.

It boils down to:
Acceptance of the Pope (Catholics Do, Orthodox Don’t)
Acceptance of the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibiity (Catholics Do, Orthodox Don’t)
Requirement for an explicit post-institution-narrative epiclesis (Orthodox do, Catholics Don’t)
Synodalism (ECCs and Orthodox do; Romans don’t, having curialism instead)
Primatial Bishop’s authority (Romans Don’t, ECC’s have some, EO vary considerably from same as ECC’s through None…)

 

[mwmroe]

Surely, there has to be a more friendlier book about Eastern Orthodoxy written by Orthodox. I would not think all Orthodox have contempt for the Catholic Church. In every Church there are bigots, but there are also very nice people too that are very friendly and open to the possibility of unity. I would say that there probably is a book “for dummies” that might be good. I heard “Catholicism for Dummies” was a good book, maybe that same company has an “Orthodoxy for Dummies” that might be good.

Thank you for your comments. Hopefully I’ll find something that is a little friendlier. I agree that not all Orthodox Christians feel that way about Catholic’s I was just making a general statement. I’m sure there are many who are more loving and don’t have bad feelings towards Catholic’s. Thanks for your suggestion. I’ll see what I can find. Those books for dummies are pretty good.

God Bless,
Mark

 

[mwmroe]

There really isn’t much from this side of the aisle.

The reason why is that, for the greatest part of things, the perceived differences that many orthodox claim don’t really exist!

Secondarily, the majority of differences that do exist between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches also exist between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Catholic Churches, which happen to be part of the Catholic Church.

There are significant differences between Roman ecclesiology and the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. But many of those differences are also held in the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

The primary differences are in clerical roles; again, these are mirrored in the Byzantine Catholic Churches as well.

It boils down to:
Acceptance of the Pope (Catholics Do, Orthodox Don’t)
Acceptance of the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibiity (Catholics Do, Orthodox Don’t)
Requirement for an explicit post-institution-narrative epiclesis (Orthodox do, Catholics Don’t)
Synodalism (ECCs and Orthodox do; Romans don’t, having curialism instead)
Primatial Bishop’s authority (Romans Don’t, ECC’s have some, EO vary considerably from same as ECC’s through None…)

Thank you for your comments. Your information was very informative. Thanks for explaining that way. It just goes to show that even if these differences do exist that unity can still be achieved.

God Bless,
Mark

 

[Cluny]

See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379077

<<Requirement for an explicit post-institution-narrative epiclesis (Orthodox do, Catholics Don’t)>>

I’m not too sure what this is supposed to mean, unless you are referring to the Assyrian recension of the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari. Except for a brief period in the 19th century, there were no Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches using it.

From my point of view, after studying this Anaphora, there is no doubt that it intends to accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist. That’s the only way the prayers make any sense.

 

[mwmroe]

See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379077

<<Requirement for an explicit post-institution-narrative epiclesis (Orthodox do, Catholics Don’t)>>

I’m not too sure what this is supposed to mean, unless you are referring to the Assyrian recension of the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari. Except for a brief period in the 19th century, there were no Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches using it.

From my point of view, after studying this Anaphora, there is no doubt that it intends to accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist. That’s the only way the prayers make any sense.

Thank you so much for the link. I think The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church By JAMES LIKOUDIS may be the book for me. Even though it is out of print, I can order it from the author. If others are interested here’s the link: credo.stormloader.com/letters.htm.

 

[ziapueblo]

If I am correct, the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as the Successor of St. Peter, but not his primacy among the other Bishops of the Church. Is this true? My second questions is this, in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 16:18, " . . . thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church . . ." do the Orthodox interpret this verse the same way in which Protestants do, that the “rock” signifies St. Peter’s profession of faith? Thanks and God bless.

Peace of Christ be with us all,
ZP

 

[mardukm]

If I am correct, the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as the Successor of St. Peter, but not his primacy among the other Bishops of the Church. Is this true?

Mostly “no.” A good portion of EO admit that the Pope has the primacy in the universal Church (according to the model of the early Church). HOW this role is to be realized in praxis is still in the discussion stages, though I suspect at the very least that they will eventually recognize the universal appellate authority of the papacy, as established by the Council of Sardica, and validated by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. According to the Ravenna document, the EO members were willing to admit that the Pope has an active role in an Ecumenical Council, also.

This is all made complex by the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church, who has the largest membership of any EO Church, did not attend the Ravenna Commission (2007), because of a dispute about one of the member Churches (which the ROC did not recognize as an autocephalous Church). It’'s spokesman at that time claimed that there is currently no room for a universal primacy in the ecclesiology of the ROC. Since then, however, the ROC has agreed to rejoin the Commission, and is preparing its own paper on the issue of primacy. Let us pray that it will be conducive to reunion and properly reflects the ecclesiology of the early Church, and not the prejudices of modern times.

My second questions is this, in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 16:18, " . . . thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church . . ." do the Orthodox interpret this verse the same way in which Protestants do, that the “rock” signifies St. Peter’s profession of faith?

The rhetoric and polemics on this issue are as varied as it is within Protestantism. Some will take the Catholic position that Peter, his confession, and Jesus are all the Rock, but without granting him any special role thereby; some will admit the special role, but claim it was not passed on in the apostolic succession; some will admit the special role, and that it was passed on, but do not agree with Catholics as to its purpose or extent; and some will take the Protestant position that excludes Peter in the definition of “Rock.” Simply put, there is no “official” position on the matter within EO’xy.

Blessings

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

Mostly “no.” A good portion of EO admit that the Pope has the primacy in the universal Church (according to the model of the early Church). HOW this role is to be realized in praxis is still in the discussion stages, though I suspect at the very least that they will eventually recognize the universal appellate authority of the papacy, as established by the Council of Sardica, and validated by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. According to the Ravenna document, the EO members were willing to admit that the Pope has an active role in an Ecumenical Council, also.

In the Latin Catholic understanding, is there a distinction between the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome found in the first seven Ecumenical Councils and the full, immediate, universal jurisdiction that the Pope of Rome and Latin Catholics claim?

The rhetoric and polemics on this issue are as varied as it is within Protestantism. Some will take the Catholic position that Peter, his confession, and Jesus are all the Rock, but without granting him any special role thereby; some will admit the special role, but claim it was not passed on in the apostolic succession; some will admit the special role, and that it was passed on, but do not agree with Catholics as to its purpose or extent; and some will take the Protestant position that excludes Peter in the definition of “Rock.” Simply put, there is no “official” position on the matter within EO’xy.

The Church Fathers didn’t interpret Matthew 16 all the same way either though.

 

[trophybearer]

In the Latin Catholic understanding, is there a distinction between the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome found in the first seven Ecumenical Councils and the full, immediate, universal jurisdiction that the Pope of Rome and Latin Catholics claim?

I’ve found the Church Fathers quite varied in their interpretation of Matthew 16 as well.

Actually the majority of the Church Fathers identify the “rock” as Peter’s confession, including the much loved Latin Father St. Agustine in his work Retractions. I came across this nice summary put together by an Orthodox Priest once:

Church Fathers and the Rock

"Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8.) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

This is an important point by Kendrick since one of the
RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the
principle that a preponderance of patristic consensus
is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm "

 

[trophybearer]

St. John Chrysostom 54th Homily On the Gospel of St. Matthew.

1. What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.”“Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;“that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell” shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

 

[Madaglan]

Actually the majority of the Church Fathers identify the “rock” as Peter’s confession, including the much loved Latin Father St. Agustine. I remember someone bothered to actually tally it up somewhere, if I can find it!

Yes, that’s what I found, too. The tally was posted on CAF maybe 2-3 years ago–during the time of Fr. Ambrose.

 

[dvdjs]

St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66], “Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [Oration 32:18], “Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3], “The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church.”

St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts 3:1:36], “This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the Church.”

 

[trophybearer]

St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66], “Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [Oration 32:18], “Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3], “The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church.”

St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts 3:1:36], “This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the Church.”

So who to believe- the Church Fathers or the Church Fathers? They seem to differ on the subject; although the majority agree, and not with the ones you cited.

 

[trophybearer]

St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66], “Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [Oration 32:18], “Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3], “The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church.”

St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts 3:1:36], “This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the Church.”

In St. Augustine’s Retractions he writes:

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, Thou art the Rock, but rather Thou art Peter. The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, the Rock …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.”(13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Jerome states:

Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named. (6th book on Matthew)

He also says:

The word Rock has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles. (Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII)

as well, he says:

We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less.(St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.)

 

[Mickey]

St Ambrose
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

 

[Mickey]

Cyril of Alexandria

But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things—Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col. 940).

 

[josephdaniel29]

St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66], “Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [Oration 32:18], “Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3], “The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church.”

St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts 3:1:36], “This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the Church.”

Note they said the majority believed that Peter’s confession was the rock. No one claimed it was unanimous.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Aramis]

See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379077

<<Requirement for an explicit post-institution-narrative epiclesis (Orthodox do, Catholics Don’t)>>

I’m not too sure what this is supposed to mean, unless you are referring to the Assyrian recension of the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari. Except for a brief period in the 19th century, there were no Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches using it.

From my point of view, after studying this Anaphora, there is no doubt that it intends to accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist. That’s the only way the prayers make any sense.

The Roman Mass’ invocation of the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts is before the institution narrative. It’s the biggest thing the Orthodox change in the Western Rite Liturgy. (They add an explicit byzantine epiclesis following the institution narrative.)

The Byzantine epiclesis is very explicit:

Celebrant: Moreover, we offer to you this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice; and we implore, pray, and entreat you: send dwn your holy spirit upon us and upon these gifts lying here before us.
The celebrant, concelebrants and the deacon bow three times.
The deacon then bows his head and, pointing with his orarion to the holy bread, says quietly:
Deacon: Reverend Father, bless the holy bread.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the bread, praying aloud:
Celebrant: ✠ And make this bread the precious body of your Christ.
Deacon. Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to the chalice and says:
Deacon: Reverend Father, bless the holy chalice.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the chalice, praying aloud:
Celebrant: ✠ And that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ.
Deacon. Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to both gifts and says:
Deacon: Reverend Father, bless both.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over both bread and chalice, praying aloud:
Celebrant: ✠ Changing them by your Holy Spirit.
Deacon. Amen, amen, amen.

The Addai and Mari has an explicit epiclesis following an institution narrative, but said narrative lacks the words of Christ.