What easy books to read on Orthodox views vs Catholic views?

[RyanBlack]

This is true, as the Pope is both Patriarch of the West and Patriarch of the world. Inasmuch, he is involved in Western affairs to a greater extent than those of Eastern Catholic Churches, and this is entirely appropriate. He is both Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the world, and each Office has its duties.

But it is flat-out wrong to say that the Pope does not exercise supreme judicial authority and universal jurisdiction over all of the Eastern Catholic Churches. He is much their Pope (Supreme Pontiff) as he is ours, and there is no difference in this regard. He could, at any time, and for any reason (or for no reason at all), insert himself in any way into the governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches, including the outright dismissal of every Eastern Catholic Bishop and the installation of Latin Bishops over all Eastern Churches. Of course, he would never do such a thing, but it is entirely within his purview should he wish to do so. Just so we’re clear on what the Pope may do (anything he pleases) and what he may not do (and there’s nothing he may not do).

But does universal jurisdiction really mean the Pope can do absolutely anything he pleases, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, regardless of how unjust it might be? For example, can the Pope go so far as to eliminate the Eastern Churches, together with their traditions, and merge their members into the Latin Church? If so, why should he have the power to do such a thing? Why should the Orthodox ever return to communion with the Catholic Church if the Pope has such unlimited power?

 

[DavidFilmer]

But does universal jurisdiction really mean the Pope can do absolutely anything he pleases, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, regardless of how unjust it might be?

Yes. The Pope is the only Catholic who is not bound in any way whatsoever by any Canon Law (Latin or Eastern). He can do whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, for any reason (or for no reason at all). He can abolish all Canon Law at a whim, and institute whatever alternative he fancies.

For example, can the Pope go so far as to eliminate the Eastern Churches, together with their traditions, and merge their members into the Latin Church?

Yes, he could do this. This would be somewhat analogous to the Pope’s authority to disband a Religious Community. Within Western Catholicism, Religious Communities (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc) operate with a significant measure of autonomy from the Pope and even from the local Bishop of the Diocese in which their Houses are located (except when ministering to the laity of that Bishop).

At a mere whim, the Pope could disband every Religious Order in the world. He could suspend the facilities of all Religious priests, and fold every Parish or other lay-ministry administered by Religious into their respective (Latin) Dioceses, under the jurisdiction of diocesan priests.

The Eastern Catholic Churches operate on a similar model to Western Religious Orders. And the Pope could dissolve all of them on a whim.

If so, why should he have the power to do such a thing?

Because that’s exactly what “universal jurisdiction” means. The Pope is an elected absolute monarch.

Why should the Orthodox ever return to communion with the Catholic Church if the Pope has such unlimited power?

I would say it is BECAUSE the Pope has this power. Because this is the power and authority which Our Lord invested in Peter and his successors. Not James. Not Mark. Nor anybody else.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes. The Pope is the only Catholic who is not bound in any way whatsoever by any Canon Law (Latin or Eastern). He can do whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, for any reason (or for no reason at all). He can abolish all Canon Law at a whim, and institute whatever alternative he fancies.

Yes, he could do this. This would be somewhat analogous to the Pope’s authority to disband a Religious Community. Within Western Catholicism, Religious Communities (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc) operate with a significant measure of autonomy from the Pope and even from the local Bishop of the Diocese in which their Houses are located (except when ministering to the laity of that Bishop).

At a mere whim, the Pope could disband every Religious Order in the world. He could suspend the facilities of all Religious priests, and fold every Parish or other lay-ministry administered by Religious into their respective (Latin) Dioceses, under the jurisdiction of diocesan priests.

The Eastern Catholic Churches operate on a similar model to Western Religious Orders. And the Pope could dissolve all of them on a whim.

Because that’s exactly what “universal jurisdiction” means. The Pope is an elected absolute monarch.

I would say it is BECAUSE the Pope has this power. Because this is the power and authority which Our Lord invested in Peter and his successors. Not James. Not Mark. Nor anybody else.

I am aware that the Pope is not bound by Canon Law.

However, the Eastern Churches are not analogous to Western religious orders, and do not operate on a similar model. They are self-governing Churches of equal dignity to the Latin Church (as the Church herself teaches). Furthermore, were the Pope to dissolve them, or to interfere with their liturgical traditions, or to replace their bishops with Latin bishops, not only would such interference deny the equal dignity that the Church herself teaches they have, he would violate the agreements by which some of them entered into union with the Catholic Church. I don’t believe universal jurisdiction and not being bound by canon law extends so far as you suggest.

 

[Mongo]

It isn’t a good idea to get your knowledge about the Orthodox from Catholics, or vice versa. You should always go straight to the original source for your knowledge. There are very few books that are even passable from a Catholic perspective on Orthodoxy, or vice versa.

That said I would recommend Alexander Schmemman and Timothy Ware’s books from the Orthodox perspective. Schmemman can be very critical of the west but he is very good and will make you think. He may be my favorite modern theologian. Many of his books are liturgical commentaries. Ware can give a good overview of what the Orthodox believe and their history including their relationships with the west.

From the Catholic side the Catechism may be the best source.

 

[Rohzek]

On stuff like hesychasm, theoria vs philosophy etc. and historical feuds, the theology behind it, and which tells you in a very easy to read manner the differences between the churches and which discusses which church is right? It should give basic overview on how mysticism and union with God which leads to understanding of divine truths is attained. I have a poor attention span so I need easy to read book that is not dry at all.

I am sure others can and already have provided you with some good theology works and explanations. However, I’d be more than happy to provide a list of historical works (books and articles), some of which others have already listed. The works I suggest do not simply cover actual controversies, but also the basic background of each side so that you might fully grasp their positions when they do come into controversy. I have listed them in the order I recommend reading them in:

Noble, Thomas F. X. “Michele Maccarrone on the Medieval Papacy.” Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 3 (1994): 518-533. **This is simply a review of a group of essays written only in Italian about the veneration of Saint Peter and the primacy of Peter. Noble summarizes their arguments and then offers his criticisms of possible short-comings, etc. **

Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540. This is actually a historiography of papal history that is now 20 years old. Some progress has been made since Noble’s observations, but I think a lot of what he argued remains true to this day. I recommend you try reading this before reading any of the books, since it really gives you a good idea where historians stand on papal history, which is instrumental to your inquiry.

Dvornik, Francis. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. Corrected edition, 1979. ** This book is somewhat dated, but he provides some useful models to conceive of things.**

Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Division: The Church, 450-680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. I have not read this one, but I have heard some positive remarks about it from historians on the period.

Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Cenuturies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Another dated work. This book was received rather lukewarmly because Runciman contended that the main cause of the division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was more cultural rather than doctrinal. Personally I disagree with his main thesis, but his focus is not unwarranted. Therefore, I still recommend it.

Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984. This work doesn’t particularly deal with any specific controversy between the papacy and the Eastern churches. However, it does describe the beginnings of antagonisms between Rome and the Eastern Empire. Still, I highly recommend it because these issues are all related.

Dvornik, Francis. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Reprinted 1970. Some of what he says is pretty dated, but this book remains the fundamental and standard work on the issue for historians to this day.

Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

Some background info on all the authors. All of them are/were professional historians. Francis Dvornik was a Catholic priest as well. John Meyendorff was also a Orthodox theologian. Judith Herrin (recently retired) is a giant in Byzantine history. I do not know her religion. Steven Runciman was likely Anglican. He was a profound Byzantine historian. Thomas Noble is a Carolingian historian with a strong focus on papal history during the Carolingian period. I do not know his religion.

I am sorry to say, but Dvornik’s books can be pretty dry, but I think you should read them. Noble and Runciman are profound and excellent writers. Meyendorff I am not familiar with. And Judith Herrin’s writing is good too.

By no means is this all there is. However it’s a good place to start. As you might notice, I’ve shied away from providing many works on the Gregorian Reform Movement and the Great Schism of 1054. This is primarily because the understanding of the Gregorian Reform Movement has changed dramatically over the past 15 years or so of scholarship. Therefore, it would be overwhelming to jump into it. Not only that, but much of the recent work on it is incredible dry. For the meantime, I hope Runciman’s elegant prose can suffice for the 11th and 12th century controversies.

P.S. None of these books tell you which church is right. You shouldn’t let someone make such a decision for you. Instead, you should weigh the evidence yourself and decide.

 

[CathConvert602]

I really recommend the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick.

Chapter 2 deals specifically with Roman Catholicism. He writes plainly and matter of factly. I read it after listening to his recorded seminars by the same name on Ancient Faith Radio.

It helped me in my discernment.

 

[Rocks_91]

I really recommend the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick.

Chapter 2 deals specifically with Roman Catholicism. He writes plainly and matter of factly. I read it after listening to his recorded seminars by the same name on Ancient Faith Radio.

It helped me in my discernment.

Yeah, I had gotten that book and finished it a couple days ago. Orthodoxy makes so much sense, especially in places like annulment - A Catholic couple get married in church and after nine years they have a fight and start believing their marriage wasn’t valid at all and get an annulment…this type of situations seem such pure hypocrisy. The Orthodox position makes sense even though they allow second and third marriages, they are using the power of binding and loosing which God has given the apostles out of His Mercy. At least they aren’t kidding themselves on the validity of the marriage thing.

And the infallibility of the Pope also seem a dubious doctrine, if it suits a Catholic they will preach infallibility of the Pope, but when Honorius preached monothelitism, he somehow became not infallible. I don’t believe that the faith of the apostles was incomplete somehow that the Roman Church believes in development of doctrine also.

There are so much more differences - uncreated vs created grace, etc, also, the Orthodox believe that hell is not a separation from God, even the sinner will behold God except it will be painful for them because of their spiritual condition. But it is easier for me to believe that God out of His Love, doesn’t separate Himself, even from a sinner. I looked at some of the many differences, it seems to me that Orthodoxy rings true every time.

But the main thing that I find revolting about Catholicism, and I’m not kidding, is the nude art.

 

[WT1]

I want to read about the differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox on these issues, to be clear, to gain a better understanding on which church is right.

Well you aren’t going to be able to make that decision by an “easy to read book” or not doing a thorough personal investigation. Cliff notes are not going to work here.

I would like to point some stats out though:

Approximate Christians in the world - 2 Billion
Approximate Roman Catholics - 1.2 Billion
Approximate Orthodox - 300 Million

When I look a these stats it tells me that the liturgy and Eucharist are definitely important to God and the Pope is the true successor of Saint Peter. My logic is no way are the numbers this skewed if God has not blessed the Roman Catholic Church.

However my comments should not be construed that the Orthodox Church is not blessed also and it’s members are faithful servants of God.

 

[wynd]

Well you aren’t going to be able to make that decision by an “easy to read book” or not doing a thorough personal investigation. Cliff notes are not going to work here.

I would like to point some stats out though:

Approximate Christians in the world - 2 Billion
Approximate Roman Catholics - 1.2 Billion
Approximate Orthodox - 300 Million

When I look a these stats it tells me that the liturgy and Eucharist are definitely important to God and the Pope is the true successor of Saint Peter. My logic is no way are the numbers this skewed if God has not blessed the Roman Catholic Church.

However my comments should not be construed that the Orthodox Church is not blessed also and it’s members are faithful servants of God.

Determining the truth of an idea by the size of its adherents is a dangerous game.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does that make Islam true?

It’s said that during the worst of the Arian heresy, the vast majority of bishops were Arian. Did that make Arianism true?

 

[Rocks_91]

Determining the truth of an idea by the size of its adherents is a dangerous game.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does that make Islam true?

It’s said that during the worst of the Arian heresy, the vast majority of bishops were Arian. Did that make Arianism true?

I’d also ask how those numbers were arrived at. If for instance, if only baptism is the criteria to be counted in the 1.2 billion, any amount of them might be unbelievers to cafetaria Catholic to devout and you’d not know.

 

[WT1]

Determining the truth of an idea by the size of its adherents is a dangerous game.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does that make Islam true?

It’s said that during the worst of the Arian heresy, the vast majority of bishops were Arian. Did that make Arianism true?

Re-read my post I point out two things:

1. The liturgy and Eucharist are important which both churches have.
2. I stated both are blessed and quality servants of God.

The only thing in my post that truly separated the two is I do believe the Roman Catholic Pope to be the true successor of Saint Peter.

From my own reading of the Orthodox Church I personally don’t see any reason the two Churches shouldn’t be united into one church.