Why should I be Orthodox instead of Catholic?

[Leevo]

I ask this question because recently, Orthodoxy has struck my interest. In the same way that Catholicism did about 1 year ago. I should give some background.

In the beginning of 2014, I attended a Non-Denominational Evangelical Protestant Church, and it was really the first church I had ever been to for more than one week. I grew up in a home that believed in God, but never attended church. I always loved the idea of being a part of the RCC. They sparked my interest since I was in middle school. Finally, in the middle of 2014, I started doing my own research into the RCC. My cousin, who is Catholic, found out and invited me to RCIA. I started going, and planned on being confirmed (still do, as it is coming up). However, I always had heard about Orthodoxy, and was under the understanding that they split from the RCC. I did more research into the schism and found out that wasn't exactly the case. I also watched a few videos comparing the RCC Mass, to the EO Divine Liturgy. The EO, seem to take it so much more seriously. I always see the priest at a mass with their hands held slightly up reading from a book into a microphone during the consecration of the Eucharist. But when I watched this video, and seen the EO, consecrating the Eucharist, there was no book, and they seemed so much more serious about it. This may be just me...

So, now to the main question of this post, why should I start a journey into the Orthodox Church instead of continuing into the RCC?

Orthodoxy seems to be so much closer to the early church than the RCC. I disagree with the idea that the RCC has that Jesus only planted a seed, and the church would develop over time.

Also, quick note, I seen someone said this about the schism, which really made me think.

"When one person separates from four, who really left who?" As in, the Pope left the four Patriarchs.

This stuff has really been on my mind lately, because when I was deciding to leave Protestantism, I felt this very same kind of pull towards Catholicism, I was reluctant however, to go ahead. Now its the same, I feel the pull towards Orthodoxy, but am reluctant to go, because I feel certain truths about Catholicism the same way I did about Protestantism.

I also agree more with the idea that the Pope has authority over the other bishops. I see more scriptural evidence for it. Can you guys provide scriptural and early church evidence to prove that the Pope doesn't have authority?

Can you explain theological differences between the two church's because all I can seem to find is the authority of the Pope and the "Filioque" clause. I also feel that the Filioque isn't a bad thing. Aren't they all 3 persons in one? So if the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father, would he not also be being sent from the Son as well?

Any help would be a blessing!


I can't link to the video in my post because I am new, but if you want it, I might be able to send it to you in a PM or something, idk.

 

[truefiction1]

I think you should be Orthodox for the sake of your heart.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I was once Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic response to this almost always comes down to "Because we have the pope." The meaning of "Catholic" in Roman Catholic is "In communion with one bishop."

The meaning of Catholic in Orthodoxy is the presence of the entire, fullfilled Church, possessing all the teachings and all the people - bishop, priest, deacon, monastics, and laity. Because of that, even if all of Christendom was whittled down to a single diocese, that diocese would be the Catholic Church. Even a single parish, so long as it has a bishop and priest and laity, is the Catholic Church. The necessity of all is of prime importance in understanding Orthodox ecclesiology - the Divine Liturgy cannot be served if there are no laity present. This, of course, is very different than in Roman Catholicism.

Ultimately our answer will be the same as the Roman Catholic answer, we just express it differently. They say "We have the pope," and we say "We've maintained the faith." In Orthodoxy the highest source of authority is the faith itself. If something disagrees with that faith, or is a new addition to that faith, it is not allowed. This is different from the RC teaching on development of doctrine. We start with the faith - the understanding or belief of the Incarnate One who died on the cross and ressurrected after three days - and just as the Early Church Fathers did (you'll note they almost always are careful to reiterate these points in any document they wrote), only investigate within that belief. Thus the understanding of the Hypostatic Union (for example) developed, yes, but only because it was something that could be developed within the confines of The Faith. The understanding of the hypostatic union is arrived at by maintaining the faith - recognizing that Christ died and resurrected and saves us. It is not founded on working out what must have been, logically.

In contrast, other churches which have the idea of development of doctrine believe that if something can be logically argued it must be true. From this you get the sort of ideas as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallability, and Papal supremecy. These doctrines do not find their root in the Faith, but instead in logic. That's a very risky ground, because we know God is not alwayas logical. He is the Three-in-One, has a Virgin Mother, walks on Water, is the God who Died.

Is that distinction clear?

So I would say one should be Orthodox because our faith is rooted in the faith of the apostles, and we strive to preserve it. Roman Catholicism has added things.

As to the papal issues, you are right that Peter had a place of honr, and that the Bishop of Rome, canonically if nothing else, also had a place of honor. However honor doesn't necessarily mean authority, and certainly doesn't mean infallibility. It's also true, however, that we do not necessarily need the bishop of Rome. Just because he had a prescribed place in the Church doesn't mean its a necessary place - the honor of Peter is also preserved in the honor given to any bishop. After all, all the apostles were given the keys, Peter was just given them first.

Beware quotes from the fathers which seem to claim with certainty the modern papal ideas. The ones at Catholic Answers, for example, are very often taken out of context in ways which make their use blatantly dishonest, IMO. Modern scholars are even starting to doubt that Peter was seen as the first bishop of Rome, rather than a patron or evangelist or preacher, and some are questioning whether Rome had a single bishop in the early church.

 

[Leevo]

In Orthodoxy the highest source of authority is the faith itself. If something disagrees with that faith, or is a new addition to that faith, it is not allowed.

I get that if something disagrees with the faith, it should not be allowed, but why not have any additions? Especially if they are found with evidence in the scriptures?

As to the papal issues, you are right that Peter had a place of honr, and that the Bishop of Rome, canonically if nothing else, also had a place of honor. However honor doesn't necessarily mean authority, and certainly doesn't mean infallibility. It's also true, however, that we do not necessarily need the bishop of Rome. Just because he had a prescribed place in the Church doesn't mean its a necessary place - the honor of Peter is also preserved in the honor given to any bishop. After all, all the apostles were given the keys, Peter was just given them first.

Could you go into detail about the Pope? I see no scriptural evidence or early church evidence that the Pope does not deserve authority over other Bishops. I think that is the thing holding me back from Orthodoxy. I agree that scripture reveals the Pope is due authority. Especially from the following passage:

15.When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16.Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17.The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18.Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19.Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Jesus seemed to be speaking about the other apostles when he asked "Do you love me more than these?" and when he said to "feed my sheep."

That points to authority to me, but maybe you could offer a different point of view?

 

[Joseph Hazen]

We cannot add things for two reasons. 1) The faith is not ours to add things to, and 2) Because loads of things can be evidenced in the Scriptures without their being God's plan. Look at all the conflicting doctrines found in the Protestant denominations - do you think none of them have scripture verses backing them up?

That passage is very interesting in the Greek. Primarily it serves to 'undo' Peter's triple rejection of Christ during His trial before the rooster crowed. But also, there are different types of the word 'love' being used. Christ asks Peter if he 'agapes' Him - loves Him unconditionally, rooted in the divine love. Peter responds that he 'philos' Him - loves Him naturally and does not presume to love Him more than the other disciples. Christ asks Peter if he loves Him agape one more time, then accepts Peter's philo love in the final time. In other words, this episode is almost embarrassing for Peter, as Christ points out "once you said you loved me more than anyone else, yet you denied me three times. Do you still claim that divine love?" By the end Christ is referring to Peter as Simon again.

As to the reference to the sheep, that is just pastoral duties - remember that Orthodox believe that all bishops are inheritors of St. Peter - this command is to all bishops.

This event is St. Peter's re-integration into the apostolic fold. It's a refutation of his three-fold denial of Christ, and re-granting of the apostolic duties to tend to the believers.

And not to totally undo what I say about all bishops inheriting St. Peter's keys, but even if St. Peter were granted authority over the other apostles - does that authority transfer to those who sit on the throne at Rome? Only because He was martyred there? So was St. Paul *shrug* Heck, Antioch actually was founded by St. Peter, and to say that the pre-eminent authority in The Church is always found in the bishop of Rome means at some point a bishop at Rome ranked higher than the Apostle John - for he was still alive after St. Peter was martyred. Had you lived back then, who do you think would've held more authority? St. John the Beloved Apostle and Evangelist, or St. Clement, bishop of Rome?

 

[Leevo]

We cannot add things for two reasons. 1) The faith is not ours to add things to, and 2) Because loads of things can be evidenced in the Scriptures without their being God's plan. Look at all the conflicting doctrines found in the Protestant denominations - do you think none of them have scripture verses backing them up?

I really liked this explanation, didn't even think about it that way. But, isn't that what the ecumenical councils are for? Didn't the additions to the RCC come from ecumenical councils?

That passage is very interesting in the Greek. Primarily it serves to 'undo' Peter's triple rejection of Christ during His trial before the rooster crowed. But also, there are different types of the word 'love' being used. Christ asks Peter if he 'agapes' Him - loves Him unconditionally, rooted in the divine love. Peter responds that he 'philos' Him - loves Him naturally and does not presume to love Him more than the other disciples. Christ asks Peter if he loves Him agape one more time, then accepts Peter's philo love in the final time. In other words, this episode is almost embarrassing for Peter, as Christ points out "once you said you loved me more than anyone else, yet you denied me three times. Do you still claim that divine love?" By the end Christ is referring to Peter as Simon again.

Again, loved this answer, the original greek makes a huge difference.

As to the reference to the sheep, that is just pastoral duties - remember that Orthodox believe that all bishops are inheritors of St. Peter - this command is to all bishops.

Where does this belief have foundation? What is a writing from the early church fathers or the ecumenical councils or the scripture? Specifically the part about the Orthodox belief that all bishops are inheritors of St. Peter and they all have equal authority.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I was once Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic response to this almost always comes down to "Because we have the pope." The meaning of "Catholic" in Roman Catholic is "In communion with one bishop."

The meaning of Catholic in Orthodoxy is the presence of the entire, fullfilled Church, possessing all the teachings and all the people - bishop, priest, deacon, monastics, and laity. Because of that, even if all of Christendom was whittled down to a single diocese, that diocese would be the Catholic Church. Even a single parish, so long as it has a bishop and priest and laity, is the Catholic Church. The necessity of all is of prime importance in understanding Orthodox ecclesiology - the Divine Liturgy cannot be served if there are no laity present. This, of course, is very different than in Roman Catholicism.

Ultimately our answer will be the same as the Roman Catholic answer, we just express it differently. They say "We have the pope," and we say "We've maintained the faith." In Orthodoxy the highest source of authority is the faith itself. If something disagrees with that faith, or is a new addition to that faith, it is not allowed. This is different from the RC teaching on development of doctrine. We start with the faith - the understanding or belief of the Incarnate One who died on the cross and ressurrected after three days - and just as the Early Church Fathers did (you'll note they almost always are careful to reiterate these points in any document they wrote), only investigate within that belief. Thus the understanding of the Hypostatic Union (for example) developed, yes, but only because it was something that could be developed within the confines of The Faith. The understanding of the hypostatic union is arrived at by maintaining the faith - recognizing that Christ died and resurrected and saves us. It is not founded on working out what must have been, logically.

In contrast, other churches which have the idea of development of doctrine believe that if something can be logically argued it must be true. From this you get the sort of ideas as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallability, and Papal supremecy. These doctrines do not find their root in the Faith, but instead in logic. That's a very risky ground, because we know God is not alwayas logical. He is the Three-in-One, has a Virgin Mother, walks on Water, is the God who Died.

Is that distinction clear?

So I would say one should be Orthodox because our faith is rooted in the faith of the apostles, and we strive to preserve it. Roman Catholicism has added things.

As to the papal issues, you are right that Peter had a place of honr, and that the Bishop of Rome, canonically if nothing else, also had a place of honor. However honor doesn't necessarily mean authority, and certainly doesn't mean infallibility. It's also true, however, that we do not necessarily need the bishop of Rome. Just because he had a prescribed place in the Church doesn't mean its a necessary place - the honor of Peter is also preserved in the honor given to any bishop. After all, all the apostles were given the keys, Peter was just given them first.

Beware quotes from the fathers which seem to claim with certainty the modern papal ideas. The ones at Catholic Answers, for example, are very often taken out of context in ways which make their use blatantly dishonest, IMO. Modern scholars are even starting to doubt that Peter was seen as the first bishop of Rome, rather than a patron or evangelist or preacher, and some are questioning whether Rome had a single bishop in the early church.

This was an outstanding, grace-filled answer. Kudos.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

No, the Ecumenical Councils devloped those things which could be developed (and needed to be because of arising heresies) when judged against the canon of the Faith. So Christ as One Person in Two Natures, that was a development in line with the 'canon' (meaning guideline or rule) of the Faith. Mary as Theotokos over Christotokos, again - something anchored to the received Apostolic Faith.

Papal Infallibility - this is arrived at through interpretations of Scripture, logically attempting to work out the hierarchy and structure of The Church. It was proclaimed at Vatican I (and whether or not that is an ecumenical council is a very long discussion). A large segment of Roman Catholics left and started a new church because of the novelty of the teaching (search the history of the Old Catholic Church). How is Papal Infallibility something naturally investigated within a canon which consists of only Christ, and Him Crucified and Risen? The Immaculate Conception was declared ex cathedra by the pope of Rome, not in a council. The change to the creed wasn't a council, but by fiat of the pope of Rome.

All the apostles were given the authority of the keys in Scripture. Matthew 16:19 says Christ gives Peter the keys, and whatever he binds on Earth shall be bound in heaven. Christ says the same thing about binding to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18.

It's also interesting to note that Ephesians 2:20 calls Christ the chief cornerstone upon which The Church is built.

 

[Winchester]

@ Leevo

Ask your heart. Read everything you get about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, pray and attend the liturgy of both christian traditions and talk to a priest. And take your time before you decide to get baptized. These should be your first steps.

 

[RKO]

Leedo, you may note from the insignia near my name that I myself am Catholic. I wouldn't get to stuck on the Peter thing. He started the Church in Antioch, and somewhere else ( help me out, my EOC brothers and sisters) before he got to Rome. Rome became pre-eminent because it was the largest, most populated, and yes, richest city I. Which Christianity took a foothold.
My EOC brethren will disagree, but I see the RCC, the EOC, and the oriental orthodox as Christ's one church. Men got all frazzled up later on, and some decided to build temporal empires, and you have what you have today. I come from a family that has been Catholic for 400 years that we know of. So I have been slow to discern myself.
But love God, love Gods people, and let him lead you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the main issue when it comes to RC is the papacy. if the Pope is not the infallible head when speaking ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals, RC believe crumbles. there is zero evidence of Papal infallibility as it was defined before Vatican I. there is zero evidence of the Pope being seen as the head bishop over the whole Church, aside from Popes, in the early centuries.

pretty much since Papal ex cathedra pronouncements are above any council (Vatican I), you would think you would see it somewhere. it is nowhere. you actually see Popes being numbered with heretics, and councils correcting erroneous Popes.

and the filioque is semisabellian heresy
and then there is purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, created grace ( which goes against how we view salvation), Augustinian original sin, Mary's Assumption before her death, etc.

we are sadly nothing alike where it matters, and we are not one Church.

 

[Leevo]

the main issue when it comes to RC is the papacy. if the Pope is not the infallible head when speaking ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals, RC believe crumbles. there is zero evidence of Papal infallibility as it was defined before Vatican I. there is zero evidence of the Pope being seen as the head bishop over the whole Church, aside from Popes, in the early centuries.

The Catholics argue that, the "on this rock I will build my church," "feed my sheep" and "strengthen your brethren" verses directed at Peter, argue for the Pope being above the rest of the bishops and papal infallibility, in that Jesus put Peter in charge, and in order for him to conduct his duties properly he must be infallible when speaking on matters of faith.

Care to address this? Don't mean to sound like I want to debate, just trying to gather all the arguments I can so that I might make the correct decision.

and the filioque is semisabellian heresy

Care to address this more?

created grace ( which goes against how we view salvation)

I don't know what this is. Care to explain?

Augustinian original sin

Again, care to explain a bit?

I appreciate your reply though, I would like some evidence to back up your statements.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Catholics argue that, the "on this rock I will build my church," "feed my sheep" and "strengthen your brethren" verses directed at Peter, argue for the Pope being above the rest of the bishops and papal infallibility, in that Jesus put Peter in charge, and in order for him to conduct his duties properly he must be infallible when speaking on matters of faith.

Care to address this? Don't mean to sound like I want to debate, just trying to gather all the arguments I can so that I might make the correct decision.

yeah, but most of the Fathers say that it was St Peter's confession that was the rock, and that is why Simon was named Peter. so all bishops (and therefore, all Christians) are the rock if they hold to that confession of faith.

what you do see is that St Peter did have a headship, but it was in terms of honor and not jurisdictional authority, and nowhere does some kind of special place pass merely to his successors in Rome.

Care to address this more?

it blurs the distinction between Father and Son by saying that the Spirit's origin is in Them both. it also, if you look at Augustine, makes the Spirit more impersonal being only the bond between the Father and Son. the idea of blurring the distinctions of the Three Persons is a heresy called Sabellianism. so this kinda partial blurring is semisabellianism.

I don't know what this is. Care to explain?

Rome says grace is created, we say grace is God's uncreated energies that we creatures can participate in. so in Orthodoxy we can really commune with God directly.

Again, care to explain a bit?

simply put, that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. this is based of off a mistranslation of Romans 5. you are born inclined to sin and mortal, but are only guilty of the sins you commit. this is why Rome had to make a place like Limbo for unbaptized babies and righteous pagans, who died outside of the Church. Orthodox do not have this issue.

 

[Leevo]

yeah, but most of the Fathers say that it was St Peter's confession that was the rock, and that is why Simon was named Peter. so all bishops (and therefore, all Christians) are the rock if they hold to that confession of faith.

I have difficulty accepting this view. I still see more evidence to support papal supremacy. The whole thing about the "confession of Peter" being the rock, just doesn't seem to fit. Do you happen to have any quotes? Or scripture? Not some taken out of context, because the majority I have seen, seem that they support the Papacy.

what you do see is that St Peter did have a headship, but it was in terms of honor and not jurisdictional authority, and nowhere does some kind of special place pass merely to his successors in Rome.

A bit more detail here on the Orthodox understanding? Your answers are proving extremely helpful, I just want a bit more detail.

it blurs the distinction between Father and Son by saying that the Spirit's origin is in Them both.

how so? Aren't they all the same in the Trinity? So whatever proceeds from the father, would also proceed from the son? correct? Or am I wrong?

simply put, that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. this is based of off a mistranslation of Romans 5. you are born inclined to sin and mortal, but are only guilty of the sins you commit. this is why Rome had to make a place like Limbo for unbaptized babies and righteous pagans, who died outside of the Church. Orthodox do not have this issue.

I agree here, with your standpoint. It seems more logical to me that we would all share in the effects of Adam's sin, but not in the guilt. But we do have the guilt of our own actual sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have difficulty accepting this view. I still see more evidence to support papal supremacy. The whole thing about the "confession of Peter" being the rock, just doesn't seem to fit. Do you happen to have any quotes? Or scripture? Not some taken out of context, because the majority I have seen, seem that they support the Papacy.

it's in the book Popes and Patriarchs. the problem is that many of us see the Fathers stating the Pope is head of the Church. and he was, just not a direct jurisdictional head. the Patriarch of Constantinople has a headship in the EO, but as first among equals and the high place of honor within the episcopacy. so there is a headship.

A bit more detail here on the Orthodox understanding? Your answers are proving extremely helpful, I just want a bit more detail.

just that the Church as a whole viewed the Pope back in the day the way we view the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. just like how there is a monarchy of the Father within the Trinity, with the Father being the source of the Son and the Spirit, He is not over them. the Three Persons are equal in authority and power.

how so? Aren't they all the same in the Trinity? So whatever proceeds from the father, would also proceed from the son? correct? Or am I wrong?

no, the procession of the Spirit is from the Father, the begottenness of the Son is also from the Father. with a Trinitarian God, you must keep the unity of the Godhead and the separateness of Person in balance. so when describing God, you must use an attribute that is shared by the Three to show One God, or unique to each distinct Person to show the Three. the filioque puts the Spirit's origin in the Father and the Son, so you have the Son and the Father doing something the Spirit does not do. so the balance shifts.

I agree here, with your standpoint. It seems more logical to me that we would all share in the effects of Adam's sin, but not in the guilt. But we do have the guilt of our own actual sin.

yep, to be guilty of a sin you did not commit is neither loving nor just.

 

[dzheremi]

it's in the book Popes and Patriarchs.

Leevo, if you are interested I have a copy this book. I would be more than happy to send it to you, if you think it would help you understand the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint on these matters. It is a very quick read, just over 150 pages total and very user-friendly (it's written in very accessible language, with a q&a in the back). I dunno if you're comfortable receiving things from people on the internet or not, but I just remembered that I have it and really don't have much use for it myself (I'm Oriental Orthodox, and we have our own books about our differences with other churches; I just happened to pick this one up a few years ago because I had a gift card to a bookstore and couldn't find anything else).

 

[Leevo]

Leevo, if you are interested I have a copy this book. I would be more than happy to send it to you, if you think it would help you understand the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint on these matters. It is a very quick read, just over 150 pages total and very user-friendly (it's written in very accessible language, with a q&a in the back). I dunno if you're comfortable receiving things from people on the internet or not, but I just remembered that I have it and really don't have much use for it myself (I'm Oriental Orthodox, and we have our own books about our differences with other churches; I just happened to pick this one up a few years ago because I had a gift card to a bookstore and couldn't find anything else).

That would help tremendously, I currently have very little income and wouldn't be able to purchase the book for myself for quite some time. I think it would help a lot. Are you sure you don't want to hang onto it?

 

[E.C.]

Welcome to TAW!


So, as an ex-Roman Catholic here let me way in with how I came to leave the Tiber: a study of history.
It all came down to which of the two Churches changed and which did not. I didn't need to look in the last 2,000 years, much less the last century, all I had to look at was the last sixty at how much the Roman Church changed!

Before Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church had a very visible presence in the world. Priests dressed in cassocks, nuns in habits, processions were big, and in the movie listings in the paper there was even a column from the bishops on which movies Catholics should watch and why and which they should avoid and why. Many restaurants would quit serving meat on Fridays during Lent because Catholics had that influence on society. The Hollywood Hays Code came into being from the 1930s-1950s because of Catholicism.
And what did they do? What did the mighty Roman Catholic Church do with all that history and positive influence? They traded it all in to be "modern" because that is where "development" lead them. That is what happened when Pope John XXIII opened the window to let the air in: the Roman Catholic Church crippled and fell.

Catholicism changed more in the last sixty years than Orthodoxy has in the last 200. The difference in Orthodoxy from 1815 to now is that there are more autocephalous Churches and the Liturgy is celebrated in more languages. If the Roman Catholic Church successfully Protestantized herself in a mere 53 years than how much did she change in the 961 years since the Great Schism?
That is why I left Catholicism and came to Orthodoxy.

 

[dzheremi]

That would help tremendously, I currently have very little income and wouldn't be able to purchase the book for myself for quite some time. I think it would help a lot. Are you sure you don't want to hang onto it?

Nah, I don't need it. I am not Eastern Orthodox, so I don't really need any of their apologia around, though from what I can remember it's good for situations like this. If I were investigating the EO from an RC background, I would read it.

PM me your address and I'll get it sent off to you next time I go to the post office (probably next week).

 

[prodromos]

That would help tremendously, I currently have very little income and wouldn't be able to purchase the book for myself for quite some time. I think it would help a lot. Are you sure you don't want to hang onto it?

I have a small book which I have scanned called "Church, Papacy and Schism. A theological perspective" by Philip Sherrard. I can email it to you. I only ask that you not give copies away unless you buy the book yourself. I found it to be incredibly helpful. The only downside I found is that because Philip Sherrard lived in Greece for many years, he picked up the Greek habit of writing very long sentences