Thanks for everyone's replies. There seems to be almost a continuum on both the EO and RC sides, kind of moving in toward the center from both directions. On the ends you have those who see
any attempt to find common ground as heresy (we have them in Protestantism too), and it further seems that the only people they dislike more than their respective opponents, are those in their own communions whom they view as compromisers. In the middle you have those who want to whitewash all differences and simply blur the lines rather than deal with the hard truths that there really are insurmountable differences, and that
somebody is wrong about
something.
E.C., funny you said you tend to ignore any writing that portrays the debate as either/or between Catholic/Protestant. That must mean you don't read much written by either
I've found that those Catholics who like to minimize the differences, when pressed, don't seem to understand the differences. I don't hold them entirely at fault--their own "infallible" documents seem, to me, confusing at best regarding the issue. Of course most Christians of any stripe don't understand
their own beliefs, much less those of any other communion.
What really irritates me about the apologetic picture, and the Called to Communion site in particular, is that they never seem to actually establish their own position but merely to assume it. They have a lengthy article, and a very compelling one, about the issue of the canon of Scripture. I will admit I have always found this to be the hardest pill to swallow in Protestantism. They do make good points. But having made those points, they jump in a single bound to the need for the Roman Magisterium, which they claim is what declared the canon in the first place.
In reality, if I were to accept their proofs and step outside the fold of Protestantism, I would not be standing in the fold of Rome. I'd be back out in the pasture, looking for another shepherd. Most Protestants and Reformed in particular are so accustomed to this debate that if they do accept a Catholic argument as valid they will not see anything other than Rome as an alternative--even other Protestant communions are basically ruled out (after all, they only sprung up
after the Reformation).
It's a plain fact that EO can and do make many of the same arguments against Protestant positions as Rome, and likewise declare themselves as the "one true church," and it's Rome that left. Each side is right given its own presupposition of its own authority which makes it maddening for anyone out in the pasture.
From the RC side, I can see that if they convinced a Protestant to leave his communion, only to find more arguments between RC and EO, he will have a long road ahead of him. But if they say "You know, they're really pretty much just like us, and we accept their bishops and sacraments, so really you should just become Catholic" it sure makes things easier.
