This is a very interesting post. Thank you.
I have heard Orthodox men complain to me that they see Roman Catholics as having an insatiable desire for the Orthodox to become "Latinized." This term appears to have different meanings to different Orthodox sources. But the difference might be in my own perception more than it is in the sources themselves.
For us to expect other rites to abandon their ancient languages and to adopt Latin, for example, would be ridiculous. Therefore, "Latinize" must be exegesis, or even dogmatic.
If it comes down to dogma, then we cannot really have any discussion, but I would nonetheless appreciate seeing what the dogmatic differences are, so that I can be informed of their existence. As a Roman Catholic, I am fairly confident that I understand our dogmatic teachings. Have you read the Vatican document that defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854? Whose explanation of original sin, other than St. Augustine's, do you disagree with?
The other day I read a column in a magazine written by a Catholic priest that assures readers that Purgatory is not dogmatically defined, and therefore is not part of the deposit of the faith. When I asked another priest about this he told me that was not true, but is a common Modernist error.
So long as there is so much confusion floating around, it would be difficult for someone to know what the Church teaches with assurance. And as for you, it would be difficult for you to take issue with Roman Catholics on some of these things if different ones profess different versions of what the Church teaches.
Come to think of it, perhaps that is the plan: strike the shepherd and scatter the flock...
Well, there is a little problem: any doctrinal statement in the Acta of a council the Latin church calls an "Ecumenical Council" is actually a dogma of the Latin church, whatever those who want to limit the teachings of the Latin church to the content of the recently issued "Catechism of the Catholic Church" may want to claim.
Purgatory is a dogma of the Latin church, as it was defined by the purported Union Council of Florence/Ferrar, which the Latin church claims as ecumenical.
Of course, from an Orthodox point of view, rejecting the dogma of purgatory is not a modernism, but a step back toward the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.
The root of the Orthodox objection to the Latin dogma of purgatory is that it is part and parcel of the ideas of Barlaam the Calabrian that grace is created, rather than being a manifestation of the Uncreated Energies of God. Indeed, if you ask one of our most traditional monastics what the biggest hurdle to reunion is, he (or she) will probably cite 'created grace' (not a phrase the Latin church uses, but a short-hand for the Orthodox critique of Latin soteriology, purgatory included) not the filioque (which John Paul II seemed, correctly, willing to yield).
The filoque has been adequately explored on this thread.
The IC of the BVM is also a serious problem, since it, together with the failure of the Pope to insist upon the bodily death of the BVM before her bodily assumption (which has always been taught by the Orthodox, but *after* her death), leave as a permissible position within the Latin church, if not an actual dogmatic teaching, the plainly heretical position that the BVM has a pre-lapsarian Adamic nature, not a human nature as we now share. "Not assumed, not redeemed" was the cry of the Fathers against the monophysites, monothelites and monergians.
From the Orthodox view, the IC of the BVM comes very close to vitiating the basis of our salvation. (And, since the condemnation of Pope Honorius was dropped from the papal coronation oath, makes us wonder whether the West isn't still soft on the heresies which denied the full assumption of our humanity by the Eternal Word, but stopped short of monophysitism.)
Differences in our theology have been discussed at great length and in greater detail than you can imagine and by people much better versed in on the issue. If they could find a common language they would have.
I will refer you to www.orthodoxinfo.com as a good searchable source.
The Orthodox hold Theotokos, Ever-Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, in the highest among all saints. Orthodoxy mariology is parallel if not greater than Roman Catholic. We teach that she died and was taken to heaven body and soul. We certainly hold her to be Immaculate, but not the way you believe from Apocryphal sources.
The issues are clearly stated. You did not invent them and neither did I. We don't teach the same faith, which is why Orthodox can not participate in your Mass although your priests and our priests draw the same authority from Apostolic succession and are valid clergy, and although (superficially at least) our Mysteries (Sacraments) are the same in name and number.