Replies

The fundamental difference between the Latin and Greek Church stemms from (1) linguistic differences and (2) percpetion of God.

Purgatory in itself is not really different form the Partial Judgment except that it is unthinkable for an Orthodox Chirstian to think that souls of the deceased would be tortured by flames to God's "satisfaction." The Orthodox do not dwell on Jesus' suffering as much as on His triumphant Resurrection. We do not see God returning evil with evil but rather to the last breath of each human being extending a chance to save him, and so on. Indulgencies exist in the Orthodox Faith, but they are not redeemable with money. They are intended to help a person repent -- and never repeat the sins by changing his life.

There was no Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic when the Creed was put together in the 4th century. The Church was one, and catholic in its worship and teaching, not Roman Catholic as you know it today. The pope (the patriarchal title of the bishop of Rome) was one of the five patriarchs of the Church. He did not rule the Church, nor did he have juridical power over other bishops or patriarchs. He did enjoy the place of primacy of honor.

The dispute of the Creed started to take shape early. The Latin side of the Church and some Greek theologians started to refer to the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son (the famous Filioque) which was not part of the Creed as set by the first two Ecumenical Councils. There was a good reason for that: the Greek distinguishes procession from the fource (well, spirng) as opposed to proceding through. To the Greeks, the Filioque seems to suggest two causes two sources, which directly changes the monarchy of the Father, Who is the cause of all.

The Church never voted by majority against the original Creed, as it was finalized before 350 AD, as you seem to suggest. Your facts are incorrect. The practice of inserting "and from the Son" continued in the West and was made pulic at the (local, not ecumenical) Council of Toledo in the 6th century. The popes never sanctioned the use of that change of the Creed until after the Church split.

In the 9th century the 8th Ecumenical Council was held in whic, on the urging of the Frankish zealots, the Filioque was endorsed and the bishop of Constantinople (Photius) condemned. Ten years later the same Eight Ecumenical Council was held because the first one was annulled, Photius was restored and the Filioque rejected. Both the latin and the Greek side of the Church agreed on that, including the pope. To this day, theere is a Greek language Creed on the walls of the Vatican -- without the Filioque.

The Potestants often bring up Inquisition, indulgencies and papal immorality. The Church never held that its individual lay members and clergy are sinful and some gravely sinful at that. These individuals do not make the entire Church corrupt and sinful.

We disagree with the Vatican on the papal authority, which is not historically defensible. The Church Synods (Councils) were passed despite papal objections in the united Church. The princly position of the pope is unknown to the primitive and united church.

The East has not been influenced by St. Augustine (thank God!) or by humanism and/or Rennaisance. Our concept of God is different from the western, which is heavily influenced by pagan Greek philosophy, when God's "pride" is offended (!) by our unworthy transgressions. In the East we tend to see God as hurt the way a parent is hurt seeing his child, with great potential, go astray.

Great historical insights.

THANKS MUCH.

I would note again . . . it is HUMAN NATURE to pollute, corrupt, twist and mangle EVERY group that exists very long at all--I say about a year and a half--into a more machine like authoritarian

WE ARE RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG

sort of authoritarian, proud, exclusive . . . force, organization. I have NEVER observed anything else in 57 years of living. SOME are much worse and some are much better about such issues. But all show serious evidence of such tendencies.

Pretending that is not true is either blind ignorance or terminal idiocy, imho.

WHEN CHRIST CAME, HE SLICED STRAIGHT ACROSS ALL SUCH ISSUES. He didn't cut on any predictable fault lines but cut across all the sensibilities and particularly those of the RELIGIOUS, FOSSILIZED, PHARISAICAL, AUTHORITARIAN, POLITICAL, EXCLUSIVE ETC. ORDER OF THE DAY.

IF ONE WERE TO DRAW UP A LIST OF THE FEATURES CHRIST RAILED AT, AND A LIST OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF

ALL

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT AGE, SIGNIFICANT ORGANIZATIONAL LAYERS AND STRUCTURES; TRADITIONS AND CUSTOMS . . . THE LIST WOULD BE STARTLINGLY SIMILAR.

This is true of the Romans.
This is true of other traditional denominations.
This is true of older Pentecostal denominations.

It's just true about human nature and particularly the nature of humans in groups.