For one the "spectator" role of the laity was introduced early into the Latin Church, where only the priests received the Body and the Blood. That would have seemed mighty strange to put it mildly.
Second, the Catholics assure me that their early Mass resembles Vatican II's Novus Ordo Mass more than the Tridentine.
As for the Pope serving (liturgy means service not celebration) the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I would imagine it was in Latin and as far as the external impression is concerned it could be anything but recognizable. I would imagine the Eucharist consisted of a wafer and a separate Chalice, since mixing the bread with wine is a strictly Eastern innovation in the first millennium.
Even the Eastern Catholics, with the exception of Melkites perhaps, who serve the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom show enough external variation that one immediately senses it is not an Orthodox church.
And if they could understand Latin, they would immediately pick u on the filioque that was recited throughout Frankish lands and the Visigoth Spain.
By the time Cardinal Humbert "excommunicated" the Ecumenical Petriarch in 1054, one of things listed on his "grievance" roster was that the Orthodox clergy don;t look like the "real" Latin priests so much so that they are unrecognizable in their appearance as being of the same Church!
The Frankish pilgrims to Jerusalem noticed that the Greeks were not reciting filioque in the 9th century and reported them as saying "heresy." Likewize, Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria reported "heretical" Greeks whose clergy is married, and re "re-educating" Bulgarians not to fall for the heresy of "eliminating" the filioque.
How much the Church was unrecognizable to the Greek side is obvious from just reading St. Photios's list of "heresies" against the Latin side in the 9th century when suddenly the East and the West came to a knowledge what has been happening for several centuries in the ecclesiasticl linguistic aparthied.
Perhaps St. Cassi an had no problem go back and forth, and perhaps it was understood that some variation would exist, and his attitude was more akin to that of modern-day Catholics who say that our disagreements do not change the unity of our Faith, bot only indicate that some areas of the Faith must be coordinated.
I agree that the Filioque is a major stumbling block, but I will say that the Catholic teaching is not wrong, but merely incomplete!. They stop one step from the finish line and in that sense express the Faith incompletely.
I also agree that the "real" fires of the Purgatory are an item that will have to be addressed, and perhaps recanted, but Thad doesn't mean that the entire dogma of the afterlife's 3rd place is wrong; perhaps some aspects of the dogma of the Purgatory are, but not all.
Then we also must address if the fires of Hell will be real and gnashing of the teeth as well? After all, the sinners will be resurrected to, so that they can "fry" in eternal fire which, by all accounts, would have to be real as well.
But this leads us into absurdity of speculation: what will satan and his demons fry in? They have no teeth gnash, and no bodies to hurt. Will there be a special virtual fire for angels?
Finally, what makes Church a "valid" church? It is its inerrancy and if so, whose side is inerrant? Does our error make our sacraments invalid? We could answer that by posing a question if the moral state of decay of a priest invalidate his ability to perform sacraments? The answer is, of course, NO. East priest is also a sinner, and therefore there are no sinless priests. Yet they can administer absolutions, as vehicles (unclean as they may be) of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the believer. Then, even if the Catholic Church were in error, their sacraments would remain valid because their priesthood received their authority from the same Apostles as ours.
The reason we cannot commune is not because one side is in error and the other one is right, but because the Eucharist is not a vehicle, a means of achieving union of Orthodox Faith, but an expression of one.
Ping 8023
As usual, your ecumenicism and defense of Orthodoxy is perfectly balanced, Kosta. I enjoy your posts on these subjects, as they can be quite sensitive.
I only would like to add to your above comment - which I agree with. "What consists in communion"? We both agree it is an expression of unity - Latins deny Protestants but allow Orthodox. I wonder what is the "guideline" for each of our churches that determines my question? Apparently, the Latins are more open/more lax - however you want to look at it. But at what point do we draw the line? What doctrines or disciplines make this determination?
Regards
A, as a rather sweeping generalization, I agree with Kosta. One small advantage Kosta, Alex and to a far lesser extent, I may have over you is that we all have a rather keen awareness of and sensitivity to just how very, very, fundamentally and profoundly different East is from West. People in the East just don't see the world the same way people in the West, especially Americans, do. This was doubtless even more true 1100 years ago than it is today. But its the same world both East and West are looking at. Kosta's term "linguistic apartheid" struck me as soon as I read it. The language difference between East and West had a deep and lasting effect on how we "talk about" the Faith that East and West see from different angles. I don't believe we will any time soon come to a point where talking the same talk will indeed express believing the same beliefs. For any reunion to have meaning and permanentcy the East and the West really do have to talk the same talk, but far more importantly believe the same beliefs. At base I think Kosta is right that, other than issues surrounding the papacy, the "point" of our Faith is the same, the purposes of our sacraments the same, etc. But I know Kosta will agree that leaping from that to communion is a leap we simply cannot and will not make. The Latin Church may sing a Syrenesque song of unity with invitations to intercommunion while at the same time telling us to obey our bishops, but frankly that very invitation itself is an example of how differently Orthodoxy and the Latin Church view The Church.
My Catholic horse sense is that apostolically valid priesthood administering valid sacraments does.
The Catholic view is that anyone validly baptized is Catholic. This is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no Church visible and invisible, as the Protestants. self-servingly would tell us, as baptism, as well as apostolic succession, is a visible thing.
Now, some Catholics (thusly defined) fall off almost as soon as they are baptised. The Protestant Catholics fall off as soon as they fail to receive their sacraments, or fail to adhere to the Church's moral teaching, whichever comes first. The Catholics Catholics fall off quite often just as soon in the similar manner, although the lucky few remain in the Church in spirit as well as in the body. The Orthodox Catholics remain Catholic often the longest as the Orthodox Church is less infected with western liberalism and the Orthodox tend to obey their bishops, while the Orthodox sacraments are perfectly valid. It is entirely possible that there are, by that method of tally, more Catholics in the Orthodox East than there are in the corrupt West.