"Name one such derogation."
Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?
"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"
Vatican I. Want some more?
"Ok, now retract your ridiculous straw man. (It wouldn't be your first straw man either; NYer just had to correct your claim that the Pope makes himself out equal to God, as if you didn't really know better.)"
Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.
I know you asked this rhetorically, but I'd like to answer it, to give a perspective.
It's been a while since RCIA for me, but maybe less than for others.
Created Grace: I don't remember being taught this. It seems very likely it would have been in some reading or handout, but I don't remember it. Likely because it didn't interest me or raise questions - which was what I focused on in RCIA. And as it applies to praxis, my information was other sources than theology. I actually had to go just now and read up on it. And I see where the conflict is.
Papal Infallibility: Yes, briefly. It was described as rare, special, the usual that you hear in RC apologetics. Personally, I saw and heard this as a last resort. I had overcome my anti-authority bias, so I put this in that category. I can choose to join, stay or leave, but there is a final authority and a hierarchy. I hadn't even considered the objection from the Orthodox perspective. I certainly see it now.
Immaculate Conception: Yes, of course, taught and discussed. Here's the odd thing: Coming from a bible belt Protestant background I saw the teaching on Adam's sin as much more truthful in the RC. So my comparison was with the Protestant, Calvinistic, view, rather than the Orthodox.
Filioque: Of course, the creed was centermost. The scriptural basis for each point was discussed; I don't remember if "from the Father through the Son" was used at all; Orthodox history was not discussed. Again, the culture I live in is Protestant or RC, not Orthodox or RC. My overall reaction or decision on the Creed was: "Close enough if you have to use words." My primary entry point was through the Contemplatives. I don't know if this is blasphemous, but theology was secondary. So long as what I was being taught did not negate or contradict or inhibit, I mostly looked beyond theology, if that's possible. I was reading St. John OTC, Meister Eckhart, Merton concurrently. This was Catholocism to me as much or more as what I was being taught in RCIA. And in private discussions with my teachers, this is where I was focused.
I'm pretty ignorant in a lot of these areas. RCIA in my case was not presented as choices, but as a description of what the RC teaches and questions and problems with this teaching. Without knowing the Orthodox view, and being a neophyte with theology in general...
I'm reading about Orthodox theology, rather spirituality now from Orthodox sources, and I'm reading Bishop Ware's book on The Orthodox Church. I also read the wiki entry on the Filoque Clause.It seemed a balanced, even hopeful, presentation; I don't know if it's an accurate one.
You guys are far far ahead of me on the theology and the history; I'm playing catchup from a great distance behind. I do think it's helpful for each of us to know more about the other's experience. One of the reasons I joined the Church was its breadth, and to me, where I am most often found - it is the same Church. It's a big Church, the walls are erected as far out as possible. We in here are, I believe, very close to the center, not close to the boundaries. And at the center is our spirituality.
My view only, FWIW with apologies for the length.
Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations".
"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"
Vatican I. Want some more?
Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am amazed at these straw man. Do you really think it did claim that, or are you just pulling my leg?
Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.
Now you pull the bait and switch. The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out". If you *do* know that it doesn't mean that, then you are intentionally constructing straw men. And if you *don't* know that it doesn't mean that, then you need to pick up a copy of the Catechism, and read it through carefully.
Then you claim that Rome is "outside of the Church".
Outside what Church? The Orthodox are not even one Church. They are a multitude of independent and autonomous Churches. Why? Because they are separated from Peter, their head and their principle of unity, which you would have seen if you had carefully studied my quotations from the fathers (which you obviously didn't, because you replied so fast), and if you had read Soloviev.
Indeed it is because you, like 1100 years of Latins before you haven't a clue what the consensus patrum says about this and ignore how the Petrine Ministry actually worked in the first 900 years of The Church.
That's an ad hominem. Engaging in ad hominems does not get us any closer to the truth or to reconciliation.
I must say that to say that the Protestant Revolution was some how or other Orthodoxy's fault is rather beyond the pale.
I didn't claim it was "Orthodoxy's fault". The Catholic Church has already admitted that there were sins on both sides (Protestant and Catholic). But there is no doubt when you read Luther, that he justified his schism by appealing to the example of the ECs.
It sounds, however, like something the Latins would say, their pope being infallible and all
That is an ad hominem and a straw man. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions. Outside those conditions, popes have erred in many ways, as they themselves have admitted.
and they did say that the Protestant's revolt was in effect a revolt against God Himself.
Indeed, as Ignatius of Antioch said over and over in his epistles. Obedience to the bishop is obedience to God, for he is God's representative. It is not a zero-sum situation, just as "doing it to one of the least of these" is doing it unto Christ, but in the case of bishop, a fortiori. When Luther burned Exsurge Domine, he was scorning the rebuke of the Lord Himself.
-A8