The OE have a very basic set of differences with the RC ...yet reading some of the threads here you would think that they could simply forget Purgatory, the difference in the sacraments or the different view of the fall.. looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are
Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.
Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.
“...looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are”
No, looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine... or dogma for that matter, but the remainder of your statement is absolute nonsense, R. The Latins and we Orthodox are all members of The Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, despite our dogmatic and doctrinal and ecclesiological differences which are manifested in the Schism between their hierarchs and ours. We have share valid sacraments, valid orders and hierarchs within the Apostolic Succession. You folks simply aren’t members at all, in any way at all.
And R, you protestants, being in fact the rebellious children of the Church of Rome, bear a striking resemblance to your Holy Mother the Latin Church.
To use your arguments, why would geoffmylawn listen to someone who is not either Catholic or Orthodox? Your comments suggest that in order to say what you said you have either never read what the EOC and the RCC teach on the intermediates state of the souls after physical death, or that you don't understand it, or both, but lack of understanding seems obvious.
The fact is that both Churches believer in the purification of the souls and offer prayers and services for the departed who died without repenting of all their sin, in order to ease their discomfort of standing naked before heavens with all their sins exposed.
The difference has to do with the definition of the "purifying fire." The EOC objected to the idea that this is "real fire" as the RCC mentioned in the historical course of church teachings. Somehow the idea, no matter how preposterous, that God cold be "roasting" unrepentant souls to his 'satisfaction" never cough on in the East.
But Catholic apologetics will actually tell you that this is not what the Church teaches, so chances are the East will find reconciliation with the West on that subject the least difficult.
The differences on Immaculate Conception are real and are tied to the western notion of the original sin. In the East, such a dogma makes no sense. But since the original sin is not a dogma, the East wold not have any problems with the West continuing to believe Immaculate Conception as a matter of de fide limited to the West, but would object to insisting that it be accepted in the East.
As regards the original sin, the East believes what the early Church believed. Augustinian teaching are alien to the East and as such rejected as a theologoumennon (religious hypothesis), not as doctrine or, worse, dogma. It was never declared dogma during the undivided Church of the first millennium.
However, the resolution of this conflict is not impossible either. The RCC does not teach that you are born with an actual sin, but with the stain (consequence) of sin, namely the propensity for sin. It is a condition, like a disease, passed on to all succeeding generations by parents to children, because it is the fallen human nature.
The EOC teaches that man is born innocent of any committed sin, but with a "sick" soul, or deformed will, in need of healing and divine Physician.
You also mention sacraments. Which sacraments are different in the east as opposed the West? Both Churches recognize the same seven sacraments, bot churches recognize each others' orders as valid orders, and apostolic succession as the source of apostolic authority.
A Catholic priest is received into the Orthodox Church without having to go back to the seminary. That is not the case with any of the non-Catholic "clergy."
In short everything you wrote is dead wrong. I wonder who or what is your source of misinformation. But he or it is not doing you any favor.