What do you think?
Rate this book
His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic: An Orthodox Perspective - Expanded Edition
Most discussions on the subject of the Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox schism are written by apologists, typically with the agenda to prove that one side is 'exclusively right.' Often, these books focus on specific topics such as 'Peter's primacy' and never tackle the underlying issues, such as ecclesiology, or the meaning of words, such as "church" or "primacy." In this comprehensive, scholarly, yet easy-to-read study, the author cuts through the fog of popular apologetics and lays bare all the facts with unprecedented objectivity. Writing from an Orthodox perspective but unafraid to tell 'both sides of the story, ' Prof. Cleenewerck gets to the real roots of the ongoing schism while offering authentic avenues of reconciliation. The subjects addressed include: the nature of the Church, the meaning of the word 'catholic, ' the question of Peter's primacy and succession, the testimony of the Fathers and Councils, the filioque, papal infallibility, purgatory, clerical celibacy and continence, divorce, contraception, the marian doctrines and more. If you are Catholic, Orthodox, or considering the claims of either Church, you owe it to yourself to read this book. ..". a very thorough and detailed approach to the problem of unity..." - Walter Cardinal Kasper
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 22, 2008
38 people are currently reading
222 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 27, 2024
Yes, this book really did take me almost 3 months to read. It is not an "easy" read and dives pretty deeply into the fundamental doctrines of both Catholics and Orthodox Christians. For that, I found it informative and enlightening. The author does a solid job of outlining the major (and some minor) differences in beliefs between these two religions, of which I am interested in learning more about. The content was well catalogued, documented and supported by foot notes and references. Cleenewerck is open about his potential bias from the Orthodox perspective but I didn't feel he was overly persuasive about that specific position for most of the topics. Admittedly, he IS Orthodox, so clearly that is what he believes is "the most perfect way", but honestly, what I took away from this book was something different altogether. By looking at a number of historical, ecclesiological, and theological perspectives- all VERY thoroughly, I was presented with many interesting view points on what was "original" to the Apostles and the Fathers of Christianity. Some beliefs are what founded the early Christian churches, and of course, many splits in opinions contributed to what are now Orthodoxy, Catholicism and eventually, Protestantism. I have to digress slightly here to point out the author won't even acknowledge Protestant faiths as having any merit. He finds Vatican II and the advent of Catholic female altar servers as well as our "new architecture" in modern churches to be unacceptable sacrilege. So clearly, coming from my personal perspective of what is apparently a very liberal Catholic, I cannot get on board with what this author (and most likely, true Orthodox and traditional Catholics) believe is necessary for salvation. What I took away from this book was that while well-intentioned, so many of these church leaders are totally missing the entire message of Jesus himself. They are so hung up on the "details" of what is necessary for a "proper" church, they are spending their entire lives picking apart events and documents that happened hundreds of years ago in the name of being right- when the reality is, there is NO WAY any one faith is 100% correct. These liturgical religions (mine included) have become the very Pharisees that Jesus preached against. I have no doubt they have a sincere desire to please God and to uphold truth - and yes, there is one truth. However, to actually think any of us can completely discern that truth while everyone else is wrong is so... wrong.
As a whole, I am glad I read this book because it helped me to reassess many of my own beliefs and actually question why I consider myself a Catholic. However, I am blessed to belong to a wonderful, accepting Catholic church where we put the people first and let God make the decisions of who is wrong or right. If you read the gospels and come away with anything else, I am truly flummoxed.
As a whole, I am glad I read this book because it helped me to reassess many of my own beliefs and actually question why I consider myself a Catholic. However, I am blessed to belong to a wonderful, accepting Catholic church where we put the people first and let God make the decisions of who is wrong or right. If you read the gospels and come away with anything else, I am truly flummoxed.
May 25, 2022
I have a lot of thoughts about this book so I apologize in advance.
It was a very balanced, thorough and informative work about the history and theology behind the Great Schism. Though the author is Orthodox, he does a fantastic job of showing how both sides have contributed to the continued division. He presents the various arguments in their strongest forms and cites Scripture, the patristics, and respected scholars from a variety of religious backgrounds. He also does a tremendous job pointing to further reading that is scholarly while also avoiding the various “pop apologetics” books that are common to both sides of the aisle.
But I think the best- and most challenging- part about this book is the author’s blunt honesty. He makes it no secret that both Churches have massive problems and flaws that not only inhibit the process of unification, but also raise questions about the validity of some of their own distinct theological claims.
A recurring pattern was that arguments used by one side on a specific issue could be easily used against them in turn. Take the issue of purgatory and apparitions. Orthodox deride these aspects of Roman theology as made up inventions that can only be derived from the wrath of an angry western God in the words of one Eastern Orthodox theologian. Yet the Orthodox have many prayers offered for the dead that are considered effective. And why is this? Because of Orthodox apparitions that claimed this was the case. So in other words, when the Catholics do it, its demonic and unbiblical, but when the East does it, it's the will of the most Holy Theotokos herself. Makes sense!
Or the issue of contraception. Catholics often accuse the Orthodox of caving in on this issue with many Protestant groups (more on them later). Yet not only do many Catholics today actively practice contraception, but the concept of NFP was feared by many Catholic theologians at the time of its introduction to be a potentially harmful influence that would lead to a lessening of restrictions on other forms of contraception. Both churches want to follow “the Consensus of the Fathers”, but as the author rightly points out, many of them had a low view of marriage entirely, and believed sex in marriage should only be for procreation and that married Christians had almost second class status theologically.
Or the Immaculate Conception. Many Orthodox hold this view to some extent, and one can find evidence that various church fathers, both east and west, held to some version of the dogma as well. But is there enough evidence from scripture and the early church that justifies Rome making it a binding dogma that if one doesn’t hold to, they are out of communion with the Church and thus their salvation is at risk?
All of this ties back to a major theme of the book; both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have incredibly exclusivist ecclesiology and claim to the be the one true Church, and all others outside of their communions are at risk of being lost. This of course means that each of them are trying to prove that they are a continuation from the vision of the apostles and the church fathers. But as the author admits, both churches have fallen far from carrying this task out, and it has led to troubling consequences.
This is especially the case with Roman Catholicism and the doctrine of papal infallibility. Though officially only used twice, there is debate as to what exactly constitutes an “ex cathedra” statement, as one prominent defender of Vatican 1 cited in the book claimed that “thousands and thousands” of previous statements could be considered infallible. This is troubling as not only could ethically troubling statements be considered infallible (such as the bull against Luther which justified burning heretics) but its lack of clarity is itself a problem. The claims of the papacy are so grand and so immense that everything in the Roman system hinges upon them being correct. If the doctrine of papal infallibility falls, the Roman Church falls with it.
Ironically, the group that wins with this book- and also the one that the book does the most disservice to- are the Protestants. The author seems to believe throughout that the only Protestants around are evangelicals who just need to read some church history and then they’ll convert. This completely ignores confessional Presbyterians and Lutherans who certainly will be familiar with the writings of the early church, as well as confessional Anglicans, who could make a case for apostolic succession. In fact, the translator of a popular set of early church father writings is himself a Protestant. With the information presented in this book, I could easily see an inquiring Protestant taking the position of Anglican apologist River Devereux: “There is too much good, too much right, and too much inspired, in both the Church of Rome, and the Church of the Orthodox, to say in any good conscience that only one of them be the Shepherd’s Flock. Moreover, in Rome there is too much inconsistency, too much wrong, and too much earthly; in the East, too much disunity, too much incorrectness and too much irrelevance, to say the same.” Though I disagree with this view, it’s not an unreasonable one to hold. If the author’s goal was to bring about Christian unity, he will need to do better.
This book is far from an easy read, but I cannot recommend it enough if you wish to learn what the other side thinks and how to better engage in dialogue on these various matters.
It was a very balanced, thorough and informative work about the history and theology behind the Great Schism. Though the author is Orthodox, he does a fantastic job of showing how both sides have contributed to the continued division. He presents the various arguments in their strongest forms and cites Scripture, the patristics, and respected scholars from a variety of religious backgrounds. He also does a tremendous job pointing to further reading that is scholarly while also avoiding the various “pop apologetics” books that are common to both sides of the aisle.
But I think the best- and most challenging- part about this book is the author’s blunt honesty. He makes it no secret that both Churches have massive problems and flaws that not only inhibit the process of unification, but also raise questions about the validity of some of their own distinct theological claims.
A recurring pattern was that arguments used by one side on a specific issue could be easily used against them in turn. Take the issue of purgatory and apparitions. Orthodox deride these aspects of Roman theology as made up inventions that can only be derived from the wrath of an angry western God in the words of one Eastern Orthodox theologian. Yet the Orthodox have many prayers offered for the dead that are considered effective. And why is this? Because of Orthodox apparitions that claimed this was the case. So in other words, when the Catholics do it, its demonic and unbiblical, but when the East does it, it's the will of the most Holy Theotokos herself. Makes sense!
Or the issue of contraception. Catholics often accuse the Orthodox of caving in on this issue with many Protestant groups (more on them later). Yet not only do many Catholics today actively practice contraception, but the concept of NFP was feared by many Catholic theologians at the time of its introduction to be a potentially harmful influence that would lead to a lessening of restrictions on other forms of contraception. Both churches want to follow “the Consensus of the Fathers”, but as the author rightly points out, many of them had a low view of marriage entirely, and believed sex in marriage should only be for procreation and that married Christians had almost second class status theologically.
Or the Immaculate Conception. Many Orthodox hold this view to some extent, and one can find evidence that various church fathers, both east and west, held to some version of the dogma as well. But is there enough evidence from scripture and the early church that justifies Rome making it a binding dogma that if one doesn’t hold to, they are out of communion with the Church and thus their salvation is at risk?
All of this ties back to a major theme of the book; both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have incredibly exclusivist ecclesiology and claim to the be the one true Church, and all others outside of their communions are at risk of being lost. This of course means that each of them are trying to prove that they are a continuation from the vision of the apostles and the church fathers. But as the author admits, both churches have fallen far from carrying this task out, and it has led to troubling consequences.
This is especially the case with Roman Catholicism and the doctrine of papal infallibility. Though officially only used twice, there is debate as to what exactly constitutes an “ex cathedra” statement, as one prominent defender of Vatican 1 cited in the book claimed that “thousands and thousands” of previous statements could be considered infallible. This is troubling as not only could ethically troubling statements be considered infallible (such as the bull against Luther which justified burning heretics) but its lack of clarity is itself a problem. The claims of the papacy are so grand and so immense that everything in the Roman system hinges upon them being correct. If the doctrine of papal infallibility falls, the Roman Church falls with it.
Ironically, the group that wins with this book- and also the one that the book does the most disservice to- are the Protestants. The author seems to believe throughout that the only Protestants around are evangelicals who just need to read some church history and then they’ll convert. This completely ignores confessional Presbyterians and Lutherans who certainly will be familiar with the writings of the early church, as well as confessional Anglicans, who could make a case for apostolic succession. In fact, the translator of a popular set of early church father writings is himself a Protestant. With the information presented in this book, I could easily see an inquiring Protestant taking the position of Anglican apologist River Devereux: “There is too much good, too much right, and too much inspired, in both the Church of Rome, and the Church of the Orthodox, to say in any good conscience that only one of them be the Shepherd’s Flock. Moreover, in Rome there is too much inconsistency, too much wrong, and too much earthly; in the East, too much disunity, too much incorrectness and too much irrelevance, to say the same.” Though I disagree with this view, it’s not an unreasonable one to hold. If the author’s goal was to bring about Christian unity, he will need to do better.
This book is far from an easy read, but I cannot recommend it enough if you wish to learn what the other side thinks and how to better engage in dialogue on these various matters.
March 3, 2011
This book gets fours stars not because it deserves it on its own merit, but rather because of the typically poor quality of the other popular books that touch on this subject. Cleenewerck is a kind of "mimicking-robot scholar" who simply quotes others who are smarter and more accomplished writers than he is. This book comes off as an amateur's work at best, at least on the front of original contributions. Sorry, but I don't see the "holographic" ecclesiological model taking the churches by storm.
So why give it such a good score?
His arrangement of patristic and scholarly sources is great and very accessible. He does a great job of covering the serious issues about the schism, and when an Orthodox position is weak he freely admits it. He also gives the papacy and its claims to authority a lot of fair credit; much more than most Orthodox authors would. So it was nice to read something with at least an honest attempt at balance compared to most of the popular apologetic work on this subject.
So if someone is looking to understand the issues between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and wants something that favors the Orthodox position but is fair and reasonable with the Roman Catholic position as well, then this is a really great place to start. But again, Cleenewerck himself offers hardly any original ideas into the mix aside from the occasionally insightful remarks in passing. Really this book is just a good way to get familiar with a lot of translated primary sources (although of course not translated by Cleenewerck!) and to get pointed to better and more qualified scholars who have actually pushed this discussion forward.
However, if you are already very familiar with this topic and have read plenty of other treatments of it, avoid this book.
So why give it such a good score?
His arrangement of patristic and scholarly sources is great and very accessible. He does a great job of covering the serious issues about the schism, and when an Orthodox position is weak he freely admits it. He also gives the papacy and its claims to authority a lot of fair credit; much more than most Orthodox authors would. So it was nice to read something with at least an honest attempt at balance compared to most of the popular apologetic work on this subject.
So if someone is looking to understand the issues between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and wants something that favors the Orthodox position but is fair and reasonable with the Roman Catholic position as well, then this is a really great place to start. But again, Cleenewerck himself offers hardly any original ideas into the mix aside from the occasionally insightful remarks in passing. Really this book is just a good way to get familiar with a lot of translated primary sources (although of course not translated by Cleenewerck!) and to get pointed to better and more qualified scholars who have actually pushed this discussion forward.
However, if you are already very familiar with this topic and have read plenty of other treatments of it, avoid this book.
August 21, 2015
This book is useful and sad: useful because it spends the first (vastly better) half exploring ecclesiology and how incredibly misguided both Churches have become, sad because it spends the second (rather boring) half detailing all the less important disputes that have resulted from two different understandings of what the Church is. (I skimmed the second half. I don't care about culture-war legalisms or overdogmatized theological word problems.) I'm so glad I read this, because it gave me the vocabulary I needed to understand what and why the schism is. I should have known better than to expect it to convince me one way or another. That's not what it's for. Anyway, highly recommended.
July 1, 2023
The wealth of quotes and references is appreciated and I am also happy that Father acknowledges that in a schism that happened so long ago with vast reverberations that continue today, there is more than enough blame to go around. It's probably a 3.75 star book and one that I will continue to ponder.
It was especially fitting that I was able to attend Liturgy for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul while reading and I really listened to the hymnography of the day, which enhanced the discussion.
It was especially fitting that I was able to attend Liturgy for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul while reading and I really listened to the hymnography of the day, which enhanced the discussion.
January 3, 2024
This is my most perspective-changing book of the year. It is a book written by an Orthodox priest, with the goal of providing mutual understanding between Catholics and Orthodox. He does a superb job. He understands Orthodoxy of course, but he also actually understands Catholicism and tries to consider it fairly. He never relies on straw men or caricatures, and is respectful. He engages evidence from both sides, and is open about times when Orthodoxy has had its low points, too. While I have had friends in the Eastern Catholic churches for a long time and have known that they see things differently, I struggled to understand where the differences lie and why they are there. This was able to finally help me to understand and appreciate the complexity of some of the issues and how they see things. This is a good book not just for understanding the Orthodox, but is also the best source I've found for explaining some fundamental differences to a Roman about how Byzantine Catholics approach things, as well.
July 7, 2015
A unflinching and breathtaking honest assessment of the ecclesiological factors separating the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. What prevents me from giving this book 5 stars is the author's apparently soft approach when it comes to recognition of Roman Catholic saints by Orthodox Christians which the author maintains in a step towards unity. Other than that, I can't recommend this book enough to those seeking to understand the issues that divide the East and West to this day.
October 29, 2012
Excellent comparison of eastern and western theology. However, the material might be a little too deep for the reader with little or no previous knowledge of the schism.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews