Eastern Orthodox Books Reponding to Catholicism and the Papacy

[ziapueblo]

“God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.” 'God from God ’ is missing.

That portion is in the Creed from the First Council of Nicea:

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance, of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten . . .

Notice however that the Creed from the First Council of Constantinople in 381, it’s missing:

We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father’s right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

This leads me to believe that the Schism was more political than about acrivy.

I agree. An issue between upper management lol!

ZP

 

[dochawk]

The Eastern Churches don’t necessarily agree with each other on the other matters.

Even the Eastern Catholic churches don’t fully agree with each other. The Melkites and Maronites may be the two extremes, with the rest somewhere or another in between.

Personally, I think +Zogby nailed it . . .

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

Book Recommendation: The Biblical Basis for the Papacy by John Salza

 

[ioannes_pius]

I second this.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m Maronite, and I think +Zogby nailed it.

The problem with comparing the Melkites and the Maronites (or the Byzantines with any of the other Eastern traditions) is that it’s really like comparing apples and oranges. It’s like comparing the Byzantines and the Romans. Two different traditions. You can’t compare the Syriac and the Greek traditions. Both are Eastern, but there are several different Eastern traditions.

 

[TheMortenBay]

To me, the EO after the split has evolved, in terms of authority, into a group of churches divided along national lines.

I think this could be argued to be an effect of using the vernacular in the liturgy. I at least sometimes think this is causing splits in the Catholic Church nowadays.

 

[Isearch]

This is assuming the phrase “God from God” changes anything essential in the creed. In fact, it is redundant as the phrase “True God from true God” is enough to convey the same meaning. But the filioque was still in contention because the church fathers themselves disagree on this point.

 

[TomH1]

These are the two that get the most mention and are the ones people are most likely to cite as the differences. However, it seems to me that in some ways on the question of the filioque the churches have agreed to differ. Indeed, Eastern Catholics, fully Catholics and in communion with the See of Peter do not have the filioque. That would really leave only the papacy and I am not convinced that would be a major problem to resolve, if it were the only one.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches differ in a considerable number of ways. I believe to act as if they do not means that neither of these two communions can be given any serious consideration. By choosing one you have to be saying to oneself this church holds the true Deposit of the Faith. That is a very important decision. I cannot conceive how one would not take everything into account over such a vital choice.

 

[Genesis315]

“The Primacy of Peter” was recommended by an Eastern Orthodox who said it was a very fair book but also decisive in helping him choose the Orthodox Church rather than the Catholic Church.

Interesting. While the individual essays in that one are often contradictory to one another in their conclusions, if you arrange the evidence they all provided in a coherent, non-contradictory way, it ultimately supported the Catholic position. The arguments were also often the case of a distinction without a difference. As Schmemann points out in the book, the EO opposition to the primacy is based on “instinct” rather than having an opposing formulation unlike for every other heresy the pre-schism Church dealt with. When some of the authors set up to propose the positive doctrine, they seemed to describe the Catholic one. Too often a particular author would either describe Catholic doctrine or lay out data that logically and necessarily led there, only to baldly conclude with something like “but this does not mean/is not the same as primacy or jurisdiction.”

Anyway, I can go into a lot more detail on how this book actually supports the Catholic position if anyone is interested.

 

[JW55]

I wouldn’t just read one book. I would seek a variety of sources and perspectives. I don’t know any book I have read the I would call completely balanced and unbiased. It would probably be difficult for a writer to not side with one direction or the other without supporting their chosen faith. I think you have to do a composite of books and opinions and sort through the resources to come to get a balanced perspective.

I think "Small Steps Into the Kingdom’, by Fr. Spyridon Bailey is a simple, concise read from more of an Orthodox perspective, but does cite some the key differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I think he gives a fair historical perspective on the development of Papal authority in the Catholic Church. Issues such as Charlemagne’s influence, the Barbarian invasion, Islamic influence, language barriers, etc. are addressed in a concise manner.

The book “His Broken Body”, by Laurent A. Cleenewerck, although a little deep at times gives a nice representative historical perspective of the development of the Church and the subsequent schisms, and why they occurred in a pretty fair manner from both sides. It identifies differences for reasons of cultural, political developments, and geographical separation, and the struggle for power. It touches on how the break might if ever be healed.

There are hundreds of differences between the 2 faiths that can be identified. Most probably are not real stumbling blocks, others not so difficult to overcome. The biggest stumbling blocks today may be the role of the Pope and the differences in the concept of the development of doctrine. In any case and unfortunately it would be a difficult union between the two.

I honestly think if we were just beginning to deal with these problems today, we would not see a split between the churches. It probably could have existed in Unity, with perhaps a sense of uneasiness. There will always be differences, but I don’t think they would constitute a full division. Unfortunately, thousands of years of negative history seem to force us to make a choice,

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

I have to disagree with you. Have you read the Anathema given by the Councils regarding changing the Creed? Zero could be changed. By what authority did the Orthodox Church change it by removing ‘God from God’?

That being said, the Pope, Infallible in matters of Faith and morals, had, and utilized, this authority by adding ‘and the Son’ centuries before his Infallibility was officially declared.

Now, it should also be understood by anyone considering becoming Orthodox, that the Orthodox Church continues to evolve in their understanding of the Filioque. Attaching a link to the Greek Orthodox-Catholic Agreed Statement here. Agreed Statement On Filioque Adopted By North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation - Search - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

This brings me again to reiterate. Some Orthodox don’t agree with the Orthodox Agreed Statement on this issue of the Holy Spirit aka God, Himself. I found it impossible to find consistent Theology within Orthodoxy, one Orthodox Church believes the same as another but are cut off from each other due to politics Yet other Orthodox Churches don’t agree on this Statement regarding God, the Holy Spirit and are in full communion with each other. This perpetual confusion of theology within the various Orthodox Churches is, in part, why our family is officially reverting to Catholicism.

Everyone is on their own journey. Enjoy it.

 

[ziapueblo]

By what authority did the Orthodox Church change it by removing ‘God from God’?

Again, as I showed earlier from the First Council of Constantinople:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father . . .

The source, New Advet, a Roman Catholic website. The Orthodox did not remove anything. Also here.

ZP