I'm interested in reading the book The Greek East and the Latin West by Philip Sherrard, but can't find a cheap copy. Has anyone else read this and if so, did you find it worthwhile?

Sherrard is a bit strident.

I agree with Stuart that Sherrard is a bit strident, but his work is still worth reading. I would certainly read 'The Greek East and the Latin West' and its companion piece 'Church, Papacy and Schism', but I would go beyond as well, and read 'The Rape of Man and Nature', 'Human Image World Image', and 'Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition'.

Thanks to both of you for the input. I've been looking for a balanced book about the differences in development between East and West and judging from some reviews this sounded like the best bet.

Desertman, both Aidan Nichols "Rome and the Eastern Churches" and Andrew Louth's "Greek East and latin West" cover similar territory and are not strident at all. Louth's book is probably the most balanced book on the subject I have seen written by an Orthodox Churchman.

Good call Otsheylnik. I totally forgot about Louth and Nichols. Both are excellent, and serve a different - less polemical - purpose than Sherrard.

If reading for the purpose you suggest, desertman, Sherrard won't be the best place to start. I would definitely go with either of the other two. That said, get Sherrard anyway, as his work can be extremely invigorating.

Both of those books look like a good place to start. Maybe I'll give Sherrard a shot after the others. Thanks again all of you.

I'm better than half way through the Aidan Nichols book, and would definitely recommend it.

I use Nichols' book as one of the texts for my college class on the Eastern Catholic Churches, and would definitely recommend it along with Louth's book. Sherrard's is certainly a decent read, but not quite the balance of the other two.

By saying strident about Sherrards book, one does not say that much.
There is a basic difference between Aidan Nichols book on east and west and that of Sherrards. While Nichols takes history for interpreting ekklesiological views, on the contrary, as Sherrard himself writes, he takes eastern orthodox theological and ecclesiological understanding as primary into interpretation of history.
That is why in Sherrards book one does not find that much historical data and details.

So if you are interested in reading a book about east and west how the orthodox view differences in ecclesiology based on theological understanding, the one of Sherrard is a very good one. His weak point nevertheless remains the actual history of differences between east and west.