[kosta50]

With regards to the different view between Catholics and Orthodox on the Immaculate Conception (as one example) both are saying they are following tradition set down by the fathers

Yes, the "tradition" is that both Churches hold Mary to be without sin. Just "how" it happened is a different story. The belief of the Church is one thing; the "explanation" is another.

The Orthodox could not have developed an Immaculate Conception hypothesis because it would be meaningless in terms of the Eastern understanding of our Fall. The West, which also acknowledges our Fall, nevertheless believes that we are born dead in sin (St.Augustine's innovation); the Church until that time, from the beginning by all accounts, considered our Fall to be spiritual sickness, a defect, disability, in need of a Healer, not spiritual death as is the case with fallen angels.

You are confusing mechanism with the beliefs. Thus, we both believe that the Eucharist is Real Presence, real Body and Blood of Christ. We believe that man has free will. We believe that God is Triune, that Christ has two distinct unconfused natures and will, one human the other divine. We believe in Mary's undefiled virginity, her assumption in body and soul, apostolic succession, priesthood, we believe Mary was without sin, etc.

We agree on all key beliefs. Our Liturgies are externally different but internally the same. The importance of the Liturgy is central in both Churches. We both consider the Church catholic. We have Saints among the popes, and they have saints among the Greeks.

You are creating a false dichotomy, HD, as Kolo already reminded you. We may not agree on the "mechanism" of how the Eucharist becomes Real Presence, but we believe equally that it does. We may not agree with the "mechanism" of Mary's sinlessness, but we believe in the same and venerate her in the same way.

Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants, but in two different outlooks and mindsets on the same Faith for reasons I outline briefly before.

Perhaps that was Luther error. Had he just provided a few snippets from early church fathers, it would have confused everyone for the next 500 years

Not really. Anyone who started to teach that one should sin boldly could not confuse anyone in the Church to consider it as Tradition, since no Church Father, as Kolokotronis repeatedly shows, even those who walked with Apostles, never, ever espoused any interpretation similar to Luther's heresy.

Luther would have welcomed a single bishop to give him the legitimacy of the apostolic succession, but he had none. Of all the Fathers through all these centuries, Luther was able to claim only St.Augustine, a distorted St.Augustine at that. Luther was not even happy with the Apostles. He hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT. He was creating his own man-made "religion," HD, and his own man-made "church," IMHO.

[jo kus]

You are creating a false dichotomy, HD, as Kolo already reminded you. We may not agree on the "mechanism" of how the Eucharist becomes Real Presence, but we believe equally that it does. We may not agree with the "mechanism" of Mary's sinlessness, but we believe in the same and venerate her in the same way.

Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants, but in two different outlooks and mindsets on the same Faith for reasons I outline briefly before.

Very good points. As I have laboured to say before, this was clearly the Vatican 2 attitude regarding the East - that we view things complimentarily, rather than contradictorily. We approach the Trinity from different angles, but come to the same doctrinal positions. It is not surprising that two different cultures would approach theological issues from different points of views.

Luther would have welcomed a single bishop to give him the legitimacy of the apostolic succession, but he had none. Of all the Fathers through all these centuries, Luther was able to claim only St.Augustine, a distorted St.Augustine at that. Luther was not even happy with the Apostles. He hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT. He was creating his own man-made "religion," HD, and his own man-made "church," IMHO.

Poor St. Augustine. What Protestants don't tell you (the ones who are aware of Patristics) is that St. Augustine was thoroughly Catholic. Veneration of saints and Mary, Real Presence of the Eucharist, Sacramentalism, Mass, primacy of the Papacy, and so forth, concepts that the Reformers, for some reason, do not consider when reading St. Augustine. Well, fortunately, we have Calvin to infallibly tell us where at least ONE Father sort of got it "right"...

Regards

[HarleyD]

You are creating a false dichotomy, HD

Perhaps. I'm simply a Protestant bumpkins who is trying to understand the relationship between Orthodox and Catholic, their focus on tradition, and what precisely infalibility means.

We may not agree on the "mechanism" of how the Eucharist becomes Real Presence, but we believe equally that it does.

I think it's more than just mechanism and I'm not talking about the Eucharist for which I think there is considerable agreement on between the Orthodox and Catholics. Rather I'm talking about those beliefs where there is considerable disagreement, like original sin, that has been established from the "chair of Peter". I would imagine the Orthodox must have some similar method of making doctrinal decisions. Both infalible, both based on tradition.

Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants

How do you know? If every local Orthodox church is free to formulate their own local doctrinal position, as has been stated, you could have far more than 33,000 different "Churches" each running around saying all sorts of things. Protestants believe the basic core beliefs as well. There isn't anything different. (We'll skip my argument for the moment that most of them follow an Arminian (free will) belief-not a true Reformed position.)

Anyone who started to teach that one should sin boldly could not confuse anyone in the Church to consider it as Tradition, since no Church Father, as Kolokotronis repeatedly shows, even those who walked with Apostles, never, ever espoused any interpretation similar to Luther's heresy.

Oh, that old chestnut. You totally misread Luther's statement. It's no different than Augustine's statement, "Love God, and do what you want." But then, you guys don't like Augustine either.

He [Luther] hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT.

Luther held a low view of James, just like many of the Church such as Eusebius and Jerome. I would recommend the following article Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture especially chapter 5: Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of James.