Sadly it is not only \"liturgical \" differences that would keep us apart more so they are dogmatic differences. Who wants to have to deal with all these you all mentioned above. The diviation in dogma such as: fillioque, transubstantiation, predestination in Augustine, Alselm and Aquianas theologies, immaculate conception (theologoumenon) purgatory, ... These all form a different ethos in our undertanding of who we are aslo celebacy in clergy is a \"dogma\" (rather than a practice) since it stems from the whole dogma in Papacy.
Papacy also being the worst of all heressies... Starting of how they view hierarchy as a \"vicarship\" thus the clelibacy clause.
The whole concept of their theology is so twisted in many knots ...and turns that for us simple minded Orthodox cannot even fathom. Not to say our theology is not complicated but ...it is not that complex. Their theology is way to embeded in scholasticism and does take more time to figure out IMHO. Not that it is bad or good just too complicated. Our Eastern Fathers do have a very involved understanding of theology, yet their theology stems to their quest to find answers vis-a-vis heresy. We never developed dogma for the same of doing it... While in the west we see that development and evolution.
Be the first person to like this.