Customer Reviews

Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Clark Carlton's _The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church_ is a layman's text that relates the key theological stances between Rome and Orthodoxy that hinder their reunion. Specifically, it is written to explain why the two Churches are not likely to reunite in the foreseeable future. When I picked up this volume, noting that it was published by Frank Schaeffer's Regina Orthodox Press, I expected a rather numb-skull one-sided polemic written against Roman Catholicism in the same style evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants tend to treat their theological opponents. I was surprised that this book kept this to a minimum and remained relatively objective, while presenting its information in a very accessible manner. The central differences between the Catholics and Orthodox since the schism in 1054 involve the following:
1) The Byzantine Empire and its Church-State relationship. The official seat of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to the Greek city of Byzantium across the Bosporous from Asia Minor and renamed Constantinople by Constantine the Great. The Church in the Empire operated independently from the secular authority of the Roman Emperor, at least in theory. On many occasions the Emperor tried to influence Church doctrine and policy for Imperial ends, but the ideal relationship was one where the Church and Emperor fulfilled their respective sacred and secular duties. The Papacy, on the other hand, developed into an autonomous secular power in Italy. It was gradually, after 800 AD, integrated into the feudal structure of the Germanic kingdoms. Carlton notes that before the schism, as the "Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire," the Roman Catholic Church was "neither Roman nor Catholic." Most of the Roman popes of the pre-schism time period were in fact Germans and puppets of the Frankish kings, such as the noted Gregory VII. "Catholic" is better understood in the sense that it means "complete/whole" rather than "universal." The Byzantine Greeks, on the other hand maintained an identity where they defined themselves as "Romanoi" or the Romans.
2) Doctrinal statements about the Holy Trinity and especially the Filioque addition to the Nicene Creed. A major controversy erupted between Latin and Greek prelates over the addition of "and the Son" to the part of the Creed relating to the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks refused to add the Filioque to the Creed as it was obviously a misunderstood addition made by a local synod in Spain. Pope John VIII actually repudiated the addition to the Creed as blasphemous in dialogue with the Greeks. However, later Latin popes and theologians continued its use.
3) Salvation. The Orthodox maintain a less legalistic, Augustinian position regarding salvation than to the Catholics. Salvation comes to man through participation in God's uncreated grace in a process of _theosis_ (deification) or becoming like God. The Fathers drew a popular analogy: that of iron heated in a furnace. Man is like the iron, becoming heated by the fire but not actually becoming the fire itself. The Roman Catholic doctrine places an emphasis on sin, guilt and expiation. The Orthodox do not believe that mankind inherited Adam's guilt through sexual intercourse but only Adam's fallen nature, which is universal to humanity. The doctrine of Purgatory is also denied.
4) The nature and organization of the Church. This remains a very important issue for all Christian churches. The Roman Catholics devised a system of papal control over the entire Church from the dark ages that reached its apex at the Vatican I council declaring the Infallibility of the Pope. The Catholic bishops are reduced in status as mere "vicars of the pope." The Orthodox adheres to a more collegial tradition of episcopal authority where no single Bishop is in charge of the entire Church. Individuals can err, so the Catholics are in a quandary when the popes err, the majority of the believers and bishops can err, yet the Church, as an organic whole, cannot.
5) The veneration of Mary. The Roman Church adheres to a "super-human" vision of Mary that manifests itself in the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The Immaculate Conception, which states that Mary was born without original sin, serves to separate Mary from the rest of humanity and makes her in fact the "great exception" rather than the "great exemplar." In my opinion, Marian devotions in many cases seem to border on a type of pagan Goddess worship. Mary has almost become a person of the Trinity in her own right amongst the Catholics. This is especially apparent, as noted by Carlton, in the recent drive among various Catholics to have the pope declare Mary to "Coredemptrix," i.e. Co-Redeemer along with Christ. Carlton also takes a very negative view regarding recent Marian apparitions (like Fatima and Lourdes) as possible demonic deceptions and false prophecy.
Carlton's last chapter addresses evangelicals who are considering conversion to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy in order to be in a more historically grounded Christian tradition. He reiterates many of the arguments above. The book also has three appendices consisting of various official statements of Orthodox bishops on specific Catholic doctrines such as the Filioque and why the Orthodox are not interested in reuniting with Rome for theological reasons.

This book points out for Roman Catholics the proverbial elephant in the living room, the nasty secret that most in the post-Vatican II age of ecumenical optimism, would dare consider. This secret is that there really is a great deal that separates Orthodoxy from Catholicism and that these are not matters of semantics but very fundamental realities which cannot quickly or easily be overcome.

Dr. Carlton's work lacks much of the finesse of Bishop Kallistos Ware's work. He is says many things that Bishop Kallistos says, especially regarding the very real differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, he says them extremely bluntly. This is a rather polemical book at times, but its value is in saying from the Orthodox side in the blunt terms we rarely hear from the Catholic side. There are very real and fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences will not easily be overcome and the enthusiasm of certain ecumenists I feel is seriously misguided. The filioque is not a minor thing nor is the way in which it was implemented. Orthodox practices with regards to divorce and remarriage are not minor from the Catholic standpoint. The powers and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic are not unimportant to the Orthodox. They touch on ecclesiological questions which are fundamental to the understanding of what the church actually is. Certain understandings of sacramental theology differ greatly between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

I am a Roman Catholic. Dialogue will get nowhere unless it is based on truth. And it is meaningless unless it is open and honest.

Clark Carlton, a former Baptist preacher who became Orthodox and then a respected scholar and theologian, has developed a series of books tailored to outside lay people interested in the Eastern Orthodox church.

This opus, THE TRUTH, is, as is evident from its subtitle, tailored specifically to Roman Catholic layity. It will not be of great value to Protestants or non-Christians, although those inside Orthodoxy will find it a good reverse way to learn a bit more about the Roman church.

Carlton competently covers the historic and theological differences between the two main branches of Christianity (sorry, Protestants, but world-wide you are a rather distant third). He might have spent more pages describing the gradual evolution of priestly celibabcy or papal authority in the West, but if he had, this would no longer be a concise book.

Carlton truly focuses on the sacramental, administrative, and doctrinal differences between the two Christian bodies. Catholics might be surprised to find how recently their church formalized doctines such as Papal infallibility or the immaculate conception and might also find raised eyebrows at just how many points of difference there are between them and what the current Pope refers to as a "sister church."

Whether the reader is considering conversion or merely researching or just plain curious, The Truth is a good place to start reading.

For my own money, I would supplement but not supplant Carlton's volume with a read Father Thomas Hopko's paper "Roman presidency and Christian Unity in Our Time" (September, 2005).

This book could also be entitled "What every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Roman Catholic Church." Clark Carlton was never a Roman Catholic, so he writes this book from a purely scholarly prospective. Indeed, on many of the pages the footnotes and references take up more space than the actual text. Speaking from my own personal experience, much of today's Roman Catholic Catechesis is watered down and severely lacking in doctrine and dogma. Mr. Carlton explains much of Catholic dogma from a theological and historical perspective, that would be instructional to anyone wanting to know the basis of such believes as purgatory, original sin, papal primacy, the immaculate conception and the structure of the Church. Given the historical and theological framework from which these Roman Catholic ideas originated (Augustinian theology, Scholasticism, the move of the capitol from Rome to Canstantinople and the resulting decline of the western empire, which led the pope to assume secular powers), one has a much better understanding of how the Reformation could have happened, how the Catholic Church itself could have gotten so far off course, and why the modern Catholic Church is a constantly changing institution that is as alien to the ancient, historical Church as it is to it's own self from 50 years ago.

Mr. Carlton doesn't bash Catholics, he merely presents historical and theological events as they unfolded. This is a book that I will re-read several times, so it is one I will hold onto.

While I enjoyed this book, even from an Orthodox perspective, it lacks the scholarship and deeper understanding of "Traditional" Catholicism that is necessary to truly be able to proselytize to Catholics effectively. The author I think takes for granted that what matters to Orthodox converts from protestantism, necessarily matters to Catholics. He simply does not understand them, and he never was one either, so how could he, being a former evagelical. The book is too shallow. Well intentioned, but very simple, for simple minded people, of which no thinking Latin Catholic is.

The book that I would instead recommend to both Orthodox and Latin/Papal Catholics to understand why the Orthodox Church, may be (or is) more the true Church is instead one by Dr. Geoffrey Hull "The Banished Heart".

Dr. Hull demonstrated a deep serious understanding of the mindset of a "traditional" roman catholic.

I felt that Dr. Carlton was not targeting devout traditional roman catholics, but rather less educated modernist catholics. The two are very different from each other.

It is unable to convince with absolute certainty that the Orthodox Church is right.
Only Dr. Hulls book is able to do that. Francis Dvornik's books are also better.
I applaud Dr Carlton for the attempt, but was not particularly impressed. Michael Whelton's books were a bit better, but not by much.

Clark Carlton has an easy style of writing, and gets to the point right away. The book is full of facts, which are presented in a very readable way so that you can stay with the text and make progress in your study of the subject.I needed to know the comparison between the two churches and Carlton gave it to me without a lot of editorial comments. The references were there where they were supposed to be. Carlton shows what he discovered in the Orthodox church that finally led him away from the Baptist faith, and where he happily resides now that he has discovered the original Catholic Church.

Shows the differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. After reading this book, you will know why these differences are so vast that the churches cannot unite. Essential reading for Catholics and Orthodox laity and clergy.

This book tells it like it is. It will be painful for Roman Catholics to read, but if they would rather know the truth than to live a lie then this book will be worth it's weight in gold.
What this book demonstrates is what the Orthodox have been saying for centuries; that the Roman Catholic church is a medieval creation that came into being in the 11th century. Prior to that the Church of Rome was part of the Orthodox Church, one of five patriarchates (the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).
After the barbarians conquered the western part of the Roman Empire they set up a German emperor and a German Pope. In the east the Roman Emperor and the Roman patriarchs still reined and still adhered to the Catholic faith that had been handed down to them by the Fathers of the Church. The barbarian chiefs even went so far as to alter the Nicene Creed by adding the word "filioque" which completely alters the understanding of the Trinity that the Fathers had proclaimed in the first and second Ecumenical Councils. This was considered heresy by the Romans and the Photian schism ensued. It was patched up by the Eighth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in the year 879 which condemned any addition to or subtraction from the Nicene Creed as promulgated by the Fathers back in 381.
This is where matters stood until the 11th century when the barbarians invaded Roman territory in Southern Italy. The German/barbarian emperor took control of the papacy once and for all and introduced the altered creed with the word "filioque" into the liturgy of the Church of Rome. This was unacceptable to the Roman Emperor and to the Orthodox Church. The barbarians and the Romans mutually excommunicated each other in 1054. Europe was now divided into a Germanic West utilizing a heretical creed, and a Roman East adhering to the Apostolic faith of the Fathers.
Of particular interest in this book are the Tomos of 1285 and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848. Both are beautiful defenses of the Orthodox faith against the Church of Rome.
I highly recommend this book!!!

Dr. Carlton, coming from a fundamentalist background in the southern United States, betrays a world view of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that would not be recognized by either church. His basic premise is that the Great Schism is a good thing and that it should last forever. Obviously, this is a person who has something to lose - or thinks he has something to lose. His flights of theological fantasy state emphatically that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not sister churches at all. Rather, the Orthodox Church is the only church and Catholicsm has no claim to truth or validity whatsoever. There's that American Southern Fundamentalism again. He goes on to say that there never was such a thing as the Byzantine Empire. So, reading this book requires less of an open mind and more of a mushy mind that is willing to accept Dr. Carlton's vision of history and re-vision of language. I think that this book is basically destructive in spirit and that it was intended to be just that. And I am happy to say that I know of at least one convert to Orthodoxy (from the same fundamentalist background) who feels much the same. Men of goodwill on both sides of the Filioque are going to find a way to heal the Church of a division which has lasted over 900 years and should not have happened at all. Unfortunately, wherever men of goodwill are gathered, Dr. Carlton is likely to be absent. Anyone interested in knowing the truth about Orthodoxy would do well to read the books of Timothy (Bishop Kallistos) Ware, a true scholar who is truly Orthodox and a man of goodwill.

I borrowed Clark Carlton's book as an ex-fundamentalist investigating the Orthodox Church. I was also seriously considering the claims of the Catholic Church.

Carlton's book is very readable for the intelligent (but not particularly scholarly) enquirer. Carlton presents his side of the argument well, but the honest searcher is reminded there are two sides to every case. It is not Carlton's remit to present the strengths of the Catholic case.

I would advise the serious enquirer to read more broadly, sadly Aidan Nichol's Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism is out-of-print.

Ultimately, I decided on Rome. The reasons in a nutshell: Neither side is really "right", the plain truth is that the universal Church of the `Greco-Roman' world always had a fault line in its heart, it was always pulling apart like the ailing Empire itself, between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West. The claims of the Pope of Rome were constantly in conflict with the Patriarchs of the East throughout the first millennium; The `golden age' of a egalitarian episcopate is a myth; the early Church was ruled by a Pentarchy.

I chose Rome primarily because of my Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. The gospel was brought to my people by the Latin West, by the Latin Pope Gregory the Great, the founder of the papal political monarchy. The later developments in the Western Patriarchate has given the Catholic Church a marvellous and much needed doctrinal and organic unity; such unity is a miracle in this post-modern rebellious world. The unity wrought through the Pope is a gift to the universal Church, not an affront.

I emphasise here that the Catholic bishops exercised their true episcopal authority at the Second Vatican Council; the Pope was the passive overseer of the Council. He was not some infallible dictator, the `straw man' created by Orthodox mythology. The bishops, led by the Holy Spirit's charism of infallibility, debated and defined the doctrines and voted on the documents, not the Pope. The resulting documents are as wonderful as anything that the Church has ever promulgated; the liberals were devastated. I wonder how badly these 16 documents are misrepresented in the Orthodox world.

People much is made of the filioque dispute and its supposed ecclesiological implications. If I was of Eastern Origin I'm sure I would have gone with Orthodoxy. However their Church is hardly united. The Orthodox Church or rather churches, is not the ONE true Church,except perhaps in some invisible "unity" such as the nonsense Evangelicals claim; they are hopelessly split, usually along nationalistic lines and the confusion becomes even greater in the large cities of the West where they form into separate groups splintered by their different languages and ethnicities. The issues of canonical jurisdiction become a Gordian knot in these foreign lands. Neither are they absolutely one in doctrine, there is even doctrinal disagreement over whether baptised non-Orthodox Christians entering the Church need re-baptising.

Research the issues deeply from all sides. Nevertheless, a good read. Carlton's work is very clear.