Orthodoxy & Catholicism: A Comparison

By Dave Armstrong

It has been my strong desire for some time now to revise my book in order to emphasize ecumenism and unity proportionately a lot more than in the first (2004) edition. I'm much more interested in finding common ground. I've also learned a thing or two about Orthodoxy over the past decade. I wanted this volume to be able to read by Orthodox and also Eastern Catholics, without having seizures or going into apoplectic fits (caused by my ignorance or overly polemical or biased writing). I exaggerate, of course, but perhaps not by much! Toward that end I have enlisted a very qualified Eastern Catholic friend to contribute significant portions to the revised edition: Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier. The revision remains an apologetic for Catholicism and respectful critique of Orthodoxy, but now it also includes friendly ecumenical discussion and dialogue: feedback and input from the Eastern theological perspective. The overall tone, tenor, and goal is considerably different. Unity is stressed as much as apologetics.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Mar 28, 2011
• ISBN: 9781257168927

Book preview

Orthodoxy & Catholicism: A Comparison

Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison

© Copyright 2007, 2015 by Dave Armstrong

All rights reserved.

Third revised edition © Copyright 2015 by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved), with significant additional contributions from

Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier

Biblical citations are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America); unless otherwise noted. All emphases added.

Cover photograph:

Cover Art: The Image Not Made by Hands (Veil of Veronica) by the hand of iconographer, Father Abbot Damian Higgins of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Redwood Valley, California. © 2014 by Mount Tabor Studios, LLC. All rights reserved.

http://www.mounttaborstudios.com

Cover Design: Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier

ISBN 978-1-257-16892-7

Dedication

To all who fervently desire, as I do, for the universal Church to become united, as she was in her first thousand years. May that glorious day come soon!

Additional Contributor to the Third Revised 2015 Edition

Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier, M.A. is a Byzantine Catholic clergyman, the son of a deacon, and a father of three. He has degrees in theology and organizational leadership, and is the author of The Twelve Great Feasts of the Messiah and the Mother of God (Eastern Christian Publications) and Classics Made Simple: The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola (TAN Publishing). He speaks periodically on the subject of Iconic Catechesis to parishes and schools and is the Director of Learning and Development for Holy Apostles Institute.

Preface to the Third Revised 2015 Edition

The original edition of this volume was completed in July 2004, and was drawn largely from writings, including debates, from the previous seven years online. It has been one of the few books (at least on a lay level or among the apologetics community) to examine Orthodoxy from a Catholic perspective, and has had some degree of influence as such. The Coming Home Network has purchased two large bulk orders and Logos Bible Software included it in its large collection of theological works (with nine other books of mine, as of this writing).

Most notably, in June 2011, I received a letter from His Excellency, Ladislav Hučko: Bishop - Apostolic Exarch of the Greek-Catholic Church, in Prague (Byzantine Rite). He asked for permission to reprint up to 200 copies of my book (already translated into Czech) for his priests and fellow Czech bishops.

There are eight Bohemian bishops in the Czech Republic and five Moravian bishops. The country has eight dioceses and an Apostolic Exarchate. In the Archdiocese of Prague alone there were (in 2011) 378 parishes with 216 priests, serving 370,000 Catholics. It wasn't clear exactly who was to receive copies of my book, but it appeared to be all the bishops in the Czech Republic and many priests as well. I received no remuneration, but that was rather beside the point.

But to return to the reasons for this revision: in 2004, though I sought to be ecumenical scarcely any less than I do now, I seemed to mostly run across Orthodox online who were of an anti-Catholic or anti-Western nature, and the book reflected that.

I have become concerned that readers do not come away from this book with a mistaken perception that I am anti-Orthodox or that I think most, or the majority of Orthodox Christians are anti-Catholic or anti-Western. I know (from much personal experience) that some – likely, many – of them are. What percentage of the whole are of that mindset, I have no idea. But I know that there are also ecumenical Orthodox.

It has been my strong desire for some time now to revise my book in order to emphasize ecumenism and unity proportionately a lot more than in the first edition. I basically stopped debating theology with the Orthodox around 2001 or so. I only debated on rare occasions when someone strongly challenged some aspect of Catholicism, or when I felt Catholic views were being distorted and had to be defended, as part of my duty as an apologist.

I was much more interested in finding common ground, and that desire and passion has grown in the ensuing years. I've also learned a thing or two about Orthodoxy over the past decade. I want my book to reflect that, and to be able to read by Orthodox and also Eastern Catholics, without having seizures or going into apoplectic fits (caused by either my ignorance, or overly polemical or biased writing). I exaggerate, of course, but perhaps not by much!

Toward that end I have enlisted a very qualified Byzantine Catholic friend to participate in the revised edition: Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier. He has immeasurably improved the original manuscript, in a very exciting and insightful way and has made it far more Eastern-friendly in a way that I never could have done on my own.

The revision remains an apologetic for Catholicism and respectful critique of Orthodoxy, but now it also includes friendly ecumenical discussion and dialogue: feedback and input from the Eastern Catholic theological perspective. The overall tone and tenor is considerably different.

I first revised it on my own, according to my expressed goals. I remain the final editor, but now, additionally, Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier contributes his thoughts at the end of each chapter, and I counter-reply: mostly in cases of any disagreement. (sometimes in cases of enthusiastic agreement). In cases where I don't offer a reply, readers may correctly assume that I am in agreement with my friend's thoughts. I hope that readers will be able to resonate with a genuine, friendly, mutually respectful dialogue. I still believe in it (ever the hopeful idealist).

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier also wrote a new chapter at the end of the book, where he discusses matters close to his heart and of concern or importance to him.

The revision has, I think, a different spirit and ultimate goal: to foster unity as well as to defend Catholic views when they are strongly critiqued by the Orthodox.

In participating in the project of revision, I have learned many things, greatly expanded my horizons in the dialogues, and thoroughly enjoyed both the fellowship and additional theological input. My deep hope and prayer is that readers will be blessed and edified by the final product of our combined efforts.

I'm particularly gratified to be able to combine in one book two aspects that are very dear to my heart: respectful dialogue, and a blending of apologetics and ecumenism in such a way that it is clearly seen that the two endeavors are complementary and not contradictory. I believe that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are ultimately harmonious, too, and that is what the deeply hoped-for reunion is all about.

May God greatly bless you, the reader, and I'd like to express my deep, profound thanks and appreciation to Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier for his generous and very educational, edifying, and enlightening participation.

Chapter One: Introduction

AN APPRECIATION OF ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY

Orthodox Christianity possesses the seven sacraments, valid ordination, the Real Presence, a reverential understanding of sacred tradition, apostolic succession, a profound piety, a great history of contemplative and monastic spirituality, a robust veneration of Mary and the saints, and many other truly Christian attributes.

Catholics (including myself) widely admire, in particular, the sense of the sacred and the beauty and grandeur of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, as the great Catholic author Thomas Howard eloquently illustrates:

. . . one is immediately aware that one has stepped into the presence of what St. Paul would call the whole family in heaven and earth. You have stepped into the precincts of heaven! . . . I love the Orthodox Church's spirit. I think the Orthodox Church many, many centuries ago, discovered a mode of music and worship which is timeless, which is quite apart from fashion, and which somehow answers to the mystery and the solemnity and the sacramental reality of the liturgy.

(A Conversation With Thomas Howard and Frank Schaeffer, The Christian Activist, volume 9, Fall / Winter 1996, 43)

In pointing out the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, no disrespect is intended towards my Eastern brethren in Christ; this is simply a comparison and contrast for the purpose of educating inquirers who are interested in both Christian communions. My Catholic bias will be evident and should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, I devoutly hope that I succeed in avoiding the shortcomings of triumphalism or lack of charity. And I certainly do not wish to misrepresent Orthodox views in any fashion.

Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility: especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).

CATHOLIC ECUMENISM

The Catholic Church – notwithstanding all the historical difficulties, culturally based misunderstanding and theological disputes which have hindered Christian unity – takes a very high view of Orthodoxy. In the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) from the Second Vatican Council (21 November, 1964), the following glowing words are found:

From their very origins the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Church of the West has drawn largely for its liturgy, spiritual tradition and jurisprudence. Nor must we underestimate the fact that the basic dogmas of the Christian faith concerning the Trinity and the Word of God made flesh from the Virgin Mary were defined in Ecumenical Councils held in the East. To preserve this faith, these Churches have suffered, and still suffer much . . . (Chap. III, I, 14)

Everyone knows with what love the Eastern Christians celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the eucharistic mystery, source of the Church's life and pledge of future glory . . .

These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.

Moreover, in the East are to be found the riches of those spiritual traditions which are given expression in monastic life especially . . . Therefore, it is earnestly recommended that Catholics avail themselves more often of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of divine mysteries.

Everyone should realize that it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve and foster the rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches in order to faithfully preserve the fullness of Christian tradition, and to bring about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians . . . (Ch. III, I, 15)

It is the Council's urgent desire that every effort should be made toward the gradual realization of this unity in the various organizations and living activities of the Church, especially by prayer and by fraternal dialogue on points of doctrine and the more pressing pastoral problems of our time . . . the Council hopes that with the removal of the wall dividing the Eastern and Western Church there may be but one dwelling, firmly established on the cornerstone, Christ Jesus, who will make both one. (Ch. III, I, 18)

Likewise, Pope St. John Paul II concluded his encyclical Orientale Lumen (The Light of the East; May 2, 1995), with this beautiful passage:

Every day in the East the sun of hope rises again the light that restores life to the human race. It is from the East, according to a lovely image, that our Saviour will come again (cf. Mt 24:27). For us, the men and women of the East are a symbol of the Lord who comes again. We cannot forget them, not only because we love them as brothers and sisters redeemed by the same Lord, but also because a holy nostalgia for the centuries lived in the full communion of faith and charity urges us and reproaches us for our sins and our mutual misunderstandings: we have deprived the world of a joint witness that could, perhaps, have avoided so many tragedies and even changed the course of history . . . The words of the West need the words of the East, so that God's word may ever more clearly reveal its unfathomable riches . . . May God shorten the time and distance. May Christ, the Orientale Lumen, soon, very soon, grant us to discover that in fact, despite so many centuries of distance, we were very close, because together, perhaps without knowing it, we were walking towards the one Lord, and thus towards one another. May the people of the third millennium be able to enjoy this discovery, finally achieved by a word that is harmonious and thus fully credible, proclaimed by brothers and sisters who love one another and thank one another for the riches which they exchange. Thus shall we offer ourselves to God with the pure hands of reconciliation, and the people of the world will have one more well-founded reason to believe and to hope.

The Catholic stance on these matters of ecclesiological unity (following Christ's prayer at the Last Supper: John 17) is, therefore, made very clear in these authoritative Church documents.

ORTHODOX ECUMENISM

In his encyclicals, Pope St. John Paul II referred optimistically to the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, established in 1979, and to his encouraging discussions with His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople. The mutual anathemas of 1054 were revoked in 1965, with both sides admitting fault.

Thankfully, many Orthodox view such ecumenical considerations in similarly open, forward-looking, and charitable way. For example, Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, author of The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, revised edition, 1980), and an Orthodox ecumenist, expressed the conciliatory Orthodox viewpoint in that well-known work (pp. 315-316, 323-324):

Over the past half century, there have been a large number of encouraging and fruitful contacts between Orthodox and other Christians. Although enormous obstacles still remain, there has also been great progress towards a reconciliation . . . while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the Church, it is false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot possibly belong to the Church . . . We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians . . . There is only one Church, but there are many different ways of being related to this one Church . . . Much is also being achieved more informally through personal contacts . . . signs of a rapprochement are increasing year by year.

He exhibits an ecumenism (in a later revision of the same work) quite similar to the Catholic position:

There is first a more moderate group . . . This group holds that, while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the Church, it is false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of the Church who are not visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The Spirit of God blows where it chooses and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not . . .

There is only one Church, but there are many different ways of being related to this one Church . . . there are other Christian communions which possess to a greater or lesser degree a genuine measure of Orthodoxy. All these facts must be taken into account: one cannot simply say that all non-Orthodox are outside the Church, and leave it at that; one cannot treat other Christians as if they stood on the same level as unbelievers.

Such is the view of the more moderate party. But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member of the Church . . .

Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace may well be active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church . . .

(The Orthodox Church, New York: Penguin Books, revised edition, 1993, 308-309)

Also, far from pointing to Vatican II as the demise of the Catholic Church (or whatever was left of it, from the far more critical standpoint of some Orthodox), Met. Kallistos takes a completely opposite view:

The changes brought about in the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council (1962-5) have made possible a gradual rapprochement between Rome and Orthodoxy at the official level. (Ibid., 315)

Of particular relevance to Orthodox ecumenism is the article, The Myth of Schism, by noted Orthodox theologian and philosopher, David Bentley Hart (chapter 5 in Ecumenism Today: The Universal Church in the 21st Century; edited by Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey; Burlington, Vermont:  Ashgate, 2008). Here are some of his general comments about ecumenism:

[T]he most intransigent and extreme members of our respective communions—and those, I fear, who in the East are usually at present the most impassioned and obstreperous among us—seem often incapable or unwilling to acknowledge any recognizable distinction between substantial and accidental differences, between real and imagined difficulties, between obvious and merely suppositious theological issues, and between matters of negligible import and those that lie at the heart of our division.

. . . when a certain kind of Greek Orthodox anti-papal demagogue claims that the Eastern Church has always rejected the validity of the sacraments of the ‘Latin schismatics’, or that that the real church schism dates back to the eighth century when the Orthodox Church became estranged from the Roman over the latter’s ‘rejection’ of the (14th-century) distinction between God’s essence and energies, the historically literate among us should recognize that what he takes to be apostolic Orthodoxy is in fact based upon ecclesiological and sacramental principles that reach back only to 1755, and upon principles of theological interpretation first enunciated in 1942, and upon an interpretation of ecclesiastical history that dates from whenever the prescriptions for his medications expired.

On the other hand, though it is true that such persons are extremists, it is also true that they represent merely the acute manifestation of a chronic pathology. In truth, the most unpleasant aspect of the current state of the division between East and West is the sheer inventiveness with which those ardently committed to that division have gone about fabricating ever pro founder and more radical reasons for it. . . . a grand mythology has evolved regarding the theological dispositions of the Eastern and Western Christendom, to the effect that the theologies of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions have obeyed contrary logics and have in consequence arrived at conclusions inimical each to the other—that is to say, the very essence of what we believe is no longer compatible.

. . . In the abstract, theology as such should throw up no impediments to the ecumenical enterprise between East and West; whatever differences may exist between the two traditions, none of them is of any appreciable magnitude, and even if they were they would still constitute only differences between theologoumena, not between dogmata. And yet it is in fact in the realm of theology that the greatest number of obstacles are thrown up to intelligent and charitable dialogue; for where there remains some desire to rationalize and deepen the division between the churches, the sheer speculative plasticity of theological reflection and language allows for an endless multiplication of ever newer ‘ancient’ differences. As for how to remedy this situation, I can offer only the weak recommendation of better education: perhaps we might find a way to force young Orthodox theologians to read Augustine and Aquinas, rather than fatuous treatments of Augustine and Aquinas written by dyspeptic Greeks, or to force young Catholic theologians to immerse themselves in Byzantine scholasticism and Eastern ecclesiology, and to force everyone involved to learn the history of the church in all its ambiguity. But, whatever we do, we have too long allowed bad scholarship and empty cant and counterfeit history to influence and even dictate the terms of the relation between Orthodoxy and Rome.

THE PAPACY

Catholics assert that Orthodoxy's rejection of the papacy is inconsistent with the nature of the Church through the centuries. No one denies the existence of the papacy in some form in the early period. Orthodoxy, however, regards the authority exercised by popes historically (or what they think should have been exercised) as simply that of a primacy of honor, rather than a supremacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops and regional churches.

To counter that claim, Catholics point to biblical Petrine evidences and the actual wielding of authority by renowned popes such as St. Leo the Great (440-61) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604), honored as saints even by the Orthodox.

The papacy, according to Catholic tradition, is a divinely instituted office, not merely (as many Orthodox appear to consider the papacy and Roman supremacy) a political and historical happenstance. Rome was apostolic, and preeminent from the beginning of Christianity, whereas Constantinople (the seat of the Byzantine Empire) was not.

In the Catholic view, the Church was institutionally united (allowing for some temporary schisms) up to 1054, with and under the supreme ecclesiological jurisdiction of the papacy.

In the ecumenical Orthodox perspective, the Church of the first millennium is also regarded as one and united, but under a system of conciliarism, in which all bishops – including the pope – were ultimately equal in authority. The pope was and is granted a primacy of honor (first among equals), but not of universal jurisdiction, or headship.

The Catholic Church is accepted as part of the universal Church today in this framework, notwithstanding (according to them) aberrations and various heretical tenets.

For the unecumenical Orthodox, on the other hand, the Catholic Church ceased to be part of the universal Church after 1054, and has lost – according to the most severe faction – apostolic succession and valid sacraments; even true grace.

CONTRACEPTION

Orthodoxy, although praiseworthy in its generally traditional stand for Christian morality, increasingly differs from Catholicism over the question of the propriety and morality of contraception, which was universally condemned by all branches of Christianity until 1930. Thus, Catholics feel that they (almost alone today) are more in accord with apostolic tradition on this point, and that an acceptance of contraception is a giving in to humanistic sexual ethics.

Catholics regard it as a mortal sin, whereas Orthodoxy more and more today does not even forbid it. I am happy to note that some of the more traditional branches of Orthodoxy have retained the traditional view regarding a prohibition of contraception as serious sin, but the very fact of diversity and internal contradiction concerning such a grave moral issue is highly troubling.

DIVORCE

Catholics also believe that Jesus and the apostles, and ancient Christian tradition, considered a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians as absolutely indissoluble. An annulment is essentially different from a divorce in that it is the determination (based on a variety of possible reasons) that a valid sacramental marriage never existed.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, accepts second and third marriages, with a measure of penitential sadness commensurate with a falling short of the Christian ideal. Orthodox contend that this is a tragic pastoral necessity, in light of the fallen human condition: a concession to the reality of the sins of man in some respects, so to speak, and an exercise of mercy in the hard cases.

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Orthodoxy accepts the first seven ecumenical councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787), but no more. From a Catholic perspective, this appears incoherent and implausible. Why have a system in which councils are central to the governance of the Church universal, and then all of a sudden they cease, and Orthodox Christians must do without them for 1200 years?

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

Likewise, Orthodoxy accepts the doctrinal development that occurred in the first eight centuries of the Church, but then allows little of any noteworthiness to take place thereafter. For instance, the Filioque, i.e., the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than from the Father alone (which the West added to the Nicene Creed), was rejected by the East, and has been considered by the Orthodox a major reason for the enduring schism.

Catholics reply that it was a straightforward development of trinitarian theology (one of many accepted by both East and West), with much support in many respects from Eastern Church fathers (as will be documented in a later chapter).

Catholics (as a general outlook in this regard) feel that Orthodoxy – insofar as it rejects development of doctrine beyond the first eight centuries – is implicitly denying to some extent the notion of the Church (past the eighth century) as the living, developing Body of Christ, continuously led into deeper truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-15).

Aspects of doctrines such as various beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary and purgatory (not defined doctrine, although the Orthodox pray for the dead), which experienced a measure of development in the Middle Ages and after, are not generally recognized in Orthodoxy.

Yet it should also be noted that nearly all of these doctrines are supported by certain Orthodox theologians and bishops over the centuries, down to the modern period. In other words, though they may be primarily known or identified as distinctively Catholic beliefs, they are not intrinsically foreign to or impermissible in Orthodoxy: or else no Orthodox theologian at all could hold them

For example, Orthodoxy doesn't define the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but Orthodox individuals are free to believe these without being deemed heretical.

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier

A good friend of mine once remarked that being an Eastern Catholic is at times very much like the experience of a child of a great divorce. One stands, as it were, between two great sources of ecclesial parentage (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) whose estrangement developed over the course of centuries, and the wound of which is still deeply felt today especially by those of good will who long for a reconciliation and a restoration of that once, full, vibrant and dynamic and familial communion that existed for many centuries.

This longing is at its root a deeply Christian one and is felt by all members of these respective families of churches. For the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, however, this longing is most acute since at least historically we are keenly aware that Orthodoxy, and not Roman (Latin) Catholicism, is our common spiritual heritage.

To continue with the analogy of a divorce; as with the rupture of any family, there are fault lines (in both senses of that word) that serve as either the source of the original rupture in communion or reflect the differing trajectories of thought and common life that developed over the long history of the separation. An honest examination of these points which divide, along with any supporting evidence for the positions of either side, is a necessary step in the process of reconciliation and restored unity.

My friend, Dave Armstrong, has done a great service in the cause of Christian unity by identifying several of these critical points as well as outlining some of the supporting evidence for positions taken by the Catholic Church.

There are those who may assert that in this period of heightened ecumenical relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, replete with extraordinary examples of gestures and concrete progress towards unity, apologetics has no place on either side of the dialogue. Here I think it is important to make a distinction between apologia (defense) and polemos (war). Apologetics is itself a fundamentally Christian theological and philosophical enterprise going back to the apostles themselves (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), that attempts to identify and reasonably defend the principles of one’s position over and against another. In the context of this current discussion, one should expect that this enterprise should not be limited to Catholicism; and there are a growing number of worthy Orthodox apologetic efforts that attempt to do the same thing from the other perspective.

Polemicism, on the other hand, goes beyond simply a reasoned defense of positions and into a hostile, and even at times prosecutorial posture unbefitting what should characterize Christian discussions of disagreements in theological matters. It is not the opposite of apologetics, but is rather its caricature. Examples of polemics can be found over the course of many centuries of this division, but have assumed an especially acute form in the modern period, most especially, and here many of my Orthodox friends would agree with me, on the Orthodox side of the familial dispute.

Very often one sees in Catholic