jhcampbell
Puritan Board Freshman
I’m looking for solid books that attack the Catholic and Orthodox views on tradition, intercession, etc
Good books that attack Orthodoxy?
- Thread starter jhcampbell
- Start date
- Status
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
I read this as you wanting books written by heretics (unorthodox)
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Reformed Ninja (Josh Schooping) is the go-to guy for Orthodoxy. He is now a Lutheran.
omniavanitas
Puritan Board Freshman
I concur with Jacob. Joshua Schooping's "Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church" was a great resource and it's included in Kindle Unlimited if you have that.
Even simpler, read Schaff's Church Fathers set on the councils to see how inconsistent their positions are. They pick and choose canons to apply then claim oikonomia, you'll see Rome's claim of "the chair of Peter" doesn't really show up until Chalcedon, Nicaea II's ecumenical status was entirely dependent on imperial acceptance and not church acceptance, etc.
Honestly, reading the fathers is the best way to disprove their traditions. Their ecclesiology necessitates that the fathers be perfectly in line with their views, which will be very apparently impossible once you read them since they hold Reformed beliefs avant la lettre. We are in far greater agreement with antiquity as Calvin would say. Speaking of which, Calvin's Institutes have a lot of spots where he specifically uses patristics to attack Papist claims directly, and much of them apply to the East.
Granted, this is reading individual fathers. I mention reading the councils first because Rome will defer to the papacy and the East to the councils over any individual father. Constantinople II condemns a pope, and iconoclasm was actually the prevailing tradition in the East as you'll see the tension between Nicaea II and Hieria. Miaphysites also get some attention in them since you'll also read Chalcedon in there and I have yet to see one defend the "composite nature."
Even simpler, read Schaff's Church Fathers set on the councils to see how inconsistent their positions are. They pick and choose canons to apply then claim oikonomia, you'll see Rome's claim of "the chair of Peter" doesn't really show up until Chalcedon, Nicaea II's ecumenical status was entirely dependent on imperial acceptance and not church acceptance, etc.
Honestly, reading the fathers is the best way to disprove their traditions. Their ecclesiology necessitates that the fathers be perfectly in line with their views, which will be very apparently impossible once you read them since they hold Reformed beliefs avant la lettre. We are in far greater agreement with antiquity as Calvin would say. Speaking of which, Calvin's Institutes have a lot of spots where he specifically uses patristics to attack Papist claims directly, and much of them apply to the East.
Granted, this is reading individual fathers. I mention reading the councils first because Rome will defer to the papacy and the East to the councils over any individual father. Constantinople II condemns a pope, and iconoclasm was actually the prevailing tradition in the East as you'll see the tension between Nicaea II and Hieria. Miaphysites also get some attention in them since you'll also read Chalcedon in there and I have yet to see one defend the "composite nature."
- Status
