Well, that ends our discussion. The Orthodox are not banging on the "open" Vatican doors demanding to be accepted. Rather, we are waiting for you (the Latins) to come back to the Church your professed for the first 1,000 years, before inventions and additions. If that doesn't happen, oh well, so be it.
Orthodox theology does not prevent Rome from "incorporating" us into the Mother Church as you see it, because all your Uniates use Orthodox theology. Thus our rejection of the Immaculate Conception, "original sin," filioque, the Purgatory, etc. is wiped clean by your "both formulas are correct" mentality -- theology doesn't matter to the Latins as long as "non-Catholics" recognize the Pope as the ruler of the Church. It's not about theology; it's about the cult of the Pope.
So, spare us your philosophical hyperbolas of "both formulas are correct" because this is not at all about out theological "nuances."
You may close the door now. Thank you.
See my preceding post. I agree now that theological difficulties exist, and not merely difficulties of procedure. The fact that the Uniates accept the authority of the Pope despite the difference in understanding of the Trinity shows that the door is open, even if the threshhold is a bit steeper than I originally thought.
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...