Customer Reviews

Church, Papacy and Schism, A Theological Enquiry

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Philip Sherrards Church, Papacy and Schism is a brilliant study of the roots of the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is, in my opinion, the best short (116 pp.) study of this thorny problem available in English. Unfortunately the previous reviews, especially Mr. Russos rather contemptuous dismissal (a nice little theory) and superficial analysis (totally negated by history), do not convey the true character of this real gem of a book. If all you had to go on were the two previous reviews, you would get the impression that Sherrard had written a polemical pro-Orthodox tract against Catholicism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the book is written in an entirely non-polemical tone. Certainly the author has a thesis, a point of view based on Orthodox presuppositions, but he takes scrupulous care to avoid any descent into the shallow and unproductive mudslinging that sometimes occurs in Orthodox/Catholic discussion. The author strives for a diagnostic and prescriptive approach to the schism, and in this he succeeds remarkably. In other words, Sherrard seeks above all to understand the root causes of the schism honestly and objectively, as a doctor would seek for the cause of a debilitating illness, because without understanding the true nature of the illness, how can genuine healing possibly occur? Sherrards sole purpose in C. P. & S. is to grasp the true cause of this tragic division in Christianity, not in order to promote one side of an often tiresome debate, but to communicate as clearly as possible the only effective means of resolving the issue and healing Christendoms thousand year old wound.

The key to the diagnosis of the cause of the schism and the prescription for its healing, according to Sherrard, is the recovery of what he terms the patristic conception of the Church. This understanding of the Church, Sherrard also calls the paradigm of unity and catholicity. The patristic paradigm is the common heritage of the whole Church, East and West, and is enshrined especially in the tradition of the Greek Fathers of the Church from the 2nd to the 14th centuries and beyond, and it shines a profoundly restorative and unitive light on all aspects of the Church. It is noteworthy that Sherrard, when speaking of the Church and its basic structure, consistently prefers the term patristic conception rather than Orthodox, even though he knows that the Orthodox tradition claims the patristic paradigm as her own. He clearly sees the patristic paradigm as the standard by which all Christian doctrine and practice, Orthodox as well as Roman Catholic, are to be judged. For Sherrard this paradigm is the norm; all subsequent historical developments in both East and West must be seen in its light. Through this light only, as the common catholic heritage of both East and West, will the ancient schismatic wound be healed. Sherrard does not avoid history, as our Catholic polemicist claims; there is a historical basis for every aspect of his thesis. What he avoids, which our reviewer does not, is the historical fallacy, namely, the belief that a condition or state that predominates at or for a certain historical period is by that very fact true, good and right. Recent publications from the Vatican (Papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint, Apostolic letter: Orientale Lumen, and the Clarification on the Filioque issued by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity on September 13, 1995) indicate that the Vatican is moving toward de facto acceptance of the legitimacy of Sherrards thesis. This clearly written, cogently argued little book is must reading for any Christian of good will who seeks to understand the schism and how it may be healed. Highest recommendation.

Most of the time, Catholic apologists attempt to point out one or two "key" issues that divide Orthodoxy from Catholicism and try to show that these are in fact "non-issues". The fact of the matter is, the real problems lie in different understandings of ecclesiology and therefore Christology. Sherrard points out the glaring problem of saying that Christ vicariously rules the Church through the Pope. There are many fascinating points made in this book which will be very challenging to the Catholic reader.

Sherrard's slim volume is an extended essay on the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Christian Church. It is quite simply the best treatment I have read on the subject. With the clear, at times dense, and always poetic prose for which he is know, Sherrard explains the patristic way of doing and being the Christian Church. He helpfully distinguishes an "organic" Orthodox understanding of the Body of Christ from the more "organizational" Roman Catholic notion. Sherrard's thesis is that going back to the early, ancient Christian model it is under the Bishop that the Church exists in fullness at the local level: this is what "catholic" truly means. The Church is not the amalgamation of lesser parts under the universal jurisdiction of a pope. With many books to read on these topics, often written unfortunately in divisive and strident language, Sherrard's volume is irenic and is an invaluable contribution toward the building up of the Body of Christ in love and fullness.

The well written apologetic by Philip Sherrard actually indicates to most who will clearly read between the lines that indeed the Roman Church was the 1st Protestant church, and that to heal the Great Schism would be to reunite the lost Bishop of Rome with his Ecclesiastical brethren into the fold of the true church as established by Christ whilst on earth. A hope prayed for by all Orthodox Christians since the 11th century. A thought provoking read for all serious Christians.

The author tries to show that the unity and the catholicity of the Church is totally contained in each and every local church ( i.e. where the bishop is the absolute head ), and hence there can be no additional principle of unity or catholicity ( such as the papal office ) save for an ecumenical council. However, on the local level, it is obvious that a heretical ( or if prefer schismatic ) bishop can still validly celebrate the Eucharist ( where the unity and catholicity of the Church is totally present ) and yet still NOT be united with the Universal Church in belief or practice. Thus, some OTHER principle of unity must be present. Historically, the five patriarchates played an ever increasing role in the Church in maintaining this unity. Moreover, this system became the rule rather than the exception despite what the author intends. In fact, the author makes a point that he is deliberately ignoring history ( as he must ) and intends to use pure theology to show that the skewed ecclesiology of the Catholic Church can be based on a skewed theology of Trinity due to ( you guessed it!! ) the Filioque. Well, the argument is very complicated, and he may have pointed out some interesting trends in Catholic theology in its support of the papacy. However, as the Council of Florence showed, the Filique does not have to mean "and the Son" but can be interepreted as "through the Son". If one can understand what difference that makes, one will understand that the author's arguments totally lose their force. In the end, I suppose its every Orthodox's dream to somehow tie the so-called Trinitarian errors of Rome to its ecclesiological errors. Then, all the errors of Rome then all fall into a nice order like pieces of puzzle, which look initially disjoint but then come together to form a seamless whole. However, just like with Protestants, history is simply on the Catholic Church's side. If it was otherwise, books like this would not need to be written.