Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism

by Fr. Aidan Nichols O.P.

In the second edition of this major work, Dominican theologian Aidan Nichols provides a systematic account of the origins, development and recent history—now updated—of the relations between Rome and all separated Eastern Christians. By the end of the twentieth century, events in Eastern Europe, notably the conflict between the Orthodox and Uniate Churches in the Ukraine and Rumania, the tension between Rome and the Moscow patriarchate over the re-establishment of a Catholic hierarchy in the Russian Federation, and the civil war in the then federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, brought attention to the fragile relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which once had been two parts of a single Communion. At the start of the twenty-first century, in the pontificate of Benedict XVI, a papal visit to Russia—at the symbolic level, a major step forward in the ‘healing of memories’— appears at last a realistic hope. In addition, the schisms separating Rome from the two lesser, but no less interesting, Christian families, the Assyrian (Nestorian) and Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite) Churches, are examined. The book also contains an account of the origins and present condition of the Eastern Catholic Churches—a deeper knowledge of which, by their Western brethren, was called for at the Second Vatican Council as well as by subsequent synods and popes. Providing both historical and theological explanations of these divisions, this illuminating and thought-provoking book chronicles the recent steps taken to mend them in the Ecumenical Movement and offers a realistic assessment of the difficulties (theological and political) which any reunion would experience.

Genres: Theology, History, Religion, Catholic, Christianity, Christian, Christian History

400 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1992

Reviews

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book might've been smarter than me. I don't really get all the fine nuances of the theological issues and there were a lot of instances of some French or Latin phrase being introduced but I missed the definition (if it was in there) so I had to parse it out based on context.

But, other than that, I found the explanations of the background behind the East-West split really interesting. I think it gives a pretty fair rendering of both sides in controversies like papal primacy, the Filioque and other, smaller issues.

And it goes into detail on previous attempts at reunion and how they turned out. One of the most interesting things to me was learning how the Eastern Catholic Churches are kind of a stumbling block for the Orthodox churches. Though I also wonder if that's an excuse, or a matter of pricked pride that's easy to bring up.

Anyway, I can't say I'm optimistic about reunion but this book was really interesting, I have a better understanding of the issues and we should most certainly pray for reunion.

[Adam DeVille, Ph.D. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This second edition was wholly welcome, not least for clearing up some of the many errors that marred the first. In addition, Nichols is perhaps today the most insightful, intelligent, and sympathetic Roman theologian writing about the Christian East in general, and Eastern Catholics in particular. Longer thoughts here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot...

[Vsncruz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-researched explanation about a sad chapter in the church of Jesus Christ. It is no wonder why Humbert is NOT a faith role-model!

[Ephrem Upart · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent overview (not without detail) of the state of the Catholic Church's relationship to the 'separated' Eastern Churches (Oriental included). I found Fr. Nichols approachable, honest, sincere in his outlook, and at least from a novice in this field, fair and balanced regarding criticisms and responses between the many sides of the debate surrounding "reunion." A lot has changed since then, including Orthodox Nationalism, but also the heavy pits and peaks of Catholic dialogue with the Copts. I share his final sentences of the book: "Can this greatest of all ecclesiastical reunions be brought off? The auguries are not good, yet the Christian lives from hope in the unseen."

[Graychin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historically, there’s plenty of blame to go around. That’s it, in a nutshell. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics have made their blunders, have acted out of pride, and have argued (at various times) in bad faith; both, too, have made good points. But this is not a book of polemic or apology, it is a history. Fr Aidan Nichols is a Dominican scholar, hence a Catholic, but he does a more than fair job of presenting the Orthodox perspective (I know because I have, over the years, been a member of both communions; it’s a long story). But, reading this, I learned more than I knew before about the long rivalry of Rome and Constantinople, about how Turkish hegemony subordinated the eastern patriarchates, about the failed “reunion councils” of Lyon (1245) and Florence (1438), and about the origins of Uniatism.

Orthodox partisans will disagree with me, but I think if there is any hope of reunion in the modern era, it is the Orthodox who are standing in the way. Again and again the Vatican has extended an olive branch. The Orthodox can hardly argue that Roman primacy (the stone in the soup after all the other ingredients are boiled down) is a medieval invention, but Rome has offered significant concessions in how that primacy might be expressed. It’s been sixty years since the old anathemas of 1054 were finally rescinded. If there’s been no progress toward true reunion since then, this is due primarily to the fact that there is so remarkably little unity among the Orthodox churches; on this point, among others, they are simply incapable of speaking in a single voice.

Which is a shame, because the shadows are falling again and it was Christ’s own prayer, especially in times like these, that His church should be one.

[Ted · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I come to the end of my life, I do think it would be good for Christian witness if there could be unity between the Roman and Orthodox Churches, however, I don't think I will see any of it in my life time. Nichols has done a good job of laying out the history of the schism between the Eastern and Western Church and also what the issues are. He has done the research and lays out what stands between the East and West. Yet, for me, the issues he lays out are exactly the same as they were 40 years ago when I was in seminary. Nothing has changed. The Church as a human organization is plagued by all the problems of any human institution. Efforts by both sides -whether to seek out union or whether to entrench in one's position - have only led to further highlight the divide. The arguments are familiar and worn, and to me there is little evidence that the two sides have any idea how to work out their differences at this point in history.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The issue of the schism between East and West is important and Nichols does a fine job outlining the history and theology that created the now thousand year old division. A few points in the text were dull enough to cause one to consider suicide rather than continue but there were enough excellent highlights to continue plowing through. The theological sections in particular were most helpful and interesting. A read worth the time, but skip the last chapter on relations since the Council (Vatican 2). Who cares what the crazy popes since John XXIII are doing? We're all hoping the last 50 years eventually gets renounced.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good historical and theological overview of Rome and the Eastern Churches, as the title would suggest. It is obvious Nichols is a Dominican as at times he can be a bit heady, even for someone who has dipped their toes in both theology and philosophy books before.

I highly recommend this book to Catholics seeking to understand their history and the history of the East but also to Orthodox in order to better understand the view of Rome.

[Willy Hagi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good and interesting, but sometimes it gets a bit difficult to read.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to a huge, daunting topic. Fr. Nichols is at his best when presenting patristics and church history. Some of the theological subjects get short shrift: e.g. I was a bit sad that Fr. Nichols didn't deal with the hesychast or essence-energies debate--though it may not have been an official reason for schism in the past, it will surely feature prominently, given Gregory Palamas's centrality to modern orthodox theology, in any future discussions of reunion. Further, Fr. Nichols's treatment of the filioque was somewhat uneven due to his decision to omit any detailed discussion of the development of the western theology of the filioque. Though we are treated to a brief discussion of twentieth century Western theologians (and their endorsement by vatican subcommittees), there is no discussion of, say, St. Thomas's treatment of the filioque.

Still, on the whole, an outstanding work.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please tell me all about it, Fr. Aidan.