CathInfo.com

OP here.  Wow thank you very much for your thorough posts and recommendations!  As there are quite a few books listed here, are there 2 or 3 which you found most useful or preferable to the others?  I have to start somewhere after all, and would like to have the most forceful arguments and evidence presented.  Thank you again. God bless you.

That depends on what information you're looking for.  As you can tell, most of the selections above deal with the Papacy and the early Church, and not even specifically Orthodoxy.  I focused on that because that was at the heart of my discussions with my brother.  He made broad claims that the papacy as we know it didn't exist in the first millennium, which is a complete load of rubbish.  What I discovered in my reading is that nearly all of the Orthodox arguments/apologetics in this area come from the Anglicans, particularly as a result of the Oxford movement.  The Anglicans started reading the early fathers, and once they realized those fathers were thoroughly Catholic, there were two responses:  1) pour through the history books and try to come up with excuses for why they can avoid converting and continue justifying their schism, or 2) accept reality and convert to Catholicism.  

The evidence for the claims of the papacy are so overwhelming in the early Church as to be a source of draw-dropping amazement that anyone can deny it.  I even challenged my brother to find a SINGLE SOURCE in the early Church that argues that the pope was simply first among equals, or that argues the pope is not the visible head of the Church, or that he is not infallible, or that he does not have universal jurisdiction, etc.  He couldn't find one father, or one historical source that agrees with his assessment of the papacy.  Not even the heretics and schismatics at the time argued such things.

But the claims of the papacy, including infallibility, universal jurisdiction, being visible head of the Church, and wielding the power of the keys is present in undeniable fashion from the writings of the fathers, the popes, in the acts of the councils, the private letters and public statements of patriarchs, emperors, bishops, popes and kings.  It was accepted as a matter of course.  It was never challenged; it was ignored at times, but was never challenged.  

Nearly every objection to the Papacy is dealt with in extraordinary depth and completeness by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work "On the Roman Pontiff" (available from Mediatrix Press).  

My brother has no good will.  I have shown him docuмent after docuмent, from popes, councils and patriarchs, that express in the clearest terms the claims of the papacy, and he is blind and deaf to it.  I showed him Pope Leo the Great's letter 10, as one of many examples, and read it to him.  It had about as much effect as rain on a duck's back.

But if he will not believe the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18, then why would he accept the words of men?  He has made up his mind, and has hardened his heart.  

The bottom line is this:  I don't quite know what information you're looking for.

That depends on what information you're looking for.  As you can tell, most of the selections above deal with the Papacy and the early Church, and not even specifically Orthodoxy.  I focused on that because that was at the heart of my discussions with my brother.  He made broad claims that the papacy as we know it didn't exist in the first millennium, which is a complete load of rubbish.  What I discovered in my reading is that nearly all of the Orthodox arguments/apologetics in this area come from the Anglicans, particularly as a result of the Oxford movement.  The Anglicans started reading the early fathers, and once they realized those fathers were thoroughly Catholic, there were two responses:  1) pour through the history books and try to come up with excuses for why they can avoid converting and continue justifying their schism, or 2) accept reality and convert to Catholicism. 

The evidence for the claims of the papacy are so overwhelming in the early Church as to be a source of draw-dropping amazement that anyone can deny it.  I even challenged my brother to find a SINGLE SOURCE in the early Church that argues that the pope was simply first among equals, or that argues the pope is not the visible head of the Church, or that he is not infallible, or that he does not have universal jurisdiction, etc.  He couldn't find one father, or one historical source that agrees with his assessment of the papacy.  Not even the heretics and schismatics at the time argued such things.

But the claims of the papacy, including infallibility, universal jurisdiction, being visible head of the Church, and wielding the power of the keys is present in undeniable fashion from the writings of the fathers, the popes, in the acts of the councils, the private letters and public statements of patriarchs, emperors, bishops, popes and kings.  It was accepted as a matter of course.  It was never challenged; it was ignored at times, but was never challenged. 

Nearly every objection to the Papacy is dealt with in extraordinary depth and completeness by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work "On the Roman Pontiff" (available from Mediatrix Press). 

My brother has no good will.  I have shown him docuмent after docuмent, from popes, councils and patriarchs, that express in the clearest terms the claims of the papacy, and he is blind and deaf to it.  I showed him Pope Leo the Great's letter 10, as one of many examples, and read it to him.  It had about as much effect as rain on a duck's back.

But if he will not believe the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18, then why would he accept the words of men?  He has made up his mind, and has hardened his heart. 

The bottom line is this:  I don't quite know what information you're looking for.

Your posts in this thread have been excellent and informative. I always think of the orthodox as the first protestants.