Why are Catholics not Orthodox?

[InnerPhyre]

How about we leave our debates for another day. We should be preparing ourselves for the Resurrection, not getting riled up in discourse over the 'filoque'.

Sorry if it came off that way. I didn't ask the questions to debate. I was genuinely curious about the beliefs of your church.

 

[Markh]

I genrally can't see, (I'm sure I could offend someone here, but hope I won't) much of a reason to convert from Catholicsm to Orthodoxy or from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, I can't help but think that in God's view they are still the same- simply put, I'd say that

Catholicism and Orthodoxy both sponge cakes which have been made to the correct ingerdients

however, they have chosen different colour icing sugar for the topping, making them look a bit different and have debated over which of the 2 colours is God's favourite.

as I said the hardliners in both groups will be quick to say how "massive" the differences are- but i really think a lot of that is down to, location, arrogance and historical politics.
I say, "comprimise on a few doctrines (like purgatory, which loads of Orthodox accept anyway) and be vague about a few contraversial doctrines (like immac. concep) to allow both sides of the coin to be believed, that way we can just have full communion again and have a reunion party.

 

[Photini]

As long as the Pope claims supreme authority over the Church, we will never unite, as this is a desecration of the trinitarian nature of the Church. It is much deeper than location, arrogance and historical politics. The RCC is bound to the error of it's so-called "infallibility" and is paralyzed by it. And to renounce it now would bring a spiritual crisis on it's members.

 

[Philip]

I'm not here to start a debate. I ask this question honestly. If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son also, what do you make of:

Jn 20:22 He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

You are confusing the temporal mission of the Spirit with the Eternal Procession of the Spirit. Note this passage:

John 15:26-27
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning."​

It is certain that the Son sends the Spirit to us. This not the origin of the Spirit, but the origin of His mission. The Spirit, as Christ Himself stated, proceeds from the Father. The Father is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Logos is His only begotton Son, and the Spirit proceeds from Him alone.

Doesn't the OC believe that Jesus and the Father are One?

I certainly hope you are not questioning our belief in the Holy Trinity. I will assume that you are suggesting that because the Father and the Logos are one, that the Spirit must proceed from both. This is obviously flawed logic. If it held, then we must conclude also that the Son is begotten of Himself.

I say, "comprimise on a few doctrines (like purgatory, which loads of Orthodox accept anyway) and be vague about a few contraversial doctrines (like immac. concep) to allow both sides of the coin to be believed, that way we can just have full communion again and have a reunion party.

It is clear that you do not understand the basic differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Purgatory as taught by Rome is completely incompatable with the Orthodox understaning of righteousness and justification. Some Orthodox accept the idea of an intermediated state, but it vastly different from the Catholic idea of Purgatory.

Concerning the Immaculate Conception, there is nothing for us to discuss. We do not accept the Catholic idea of Original Sin. We do not believe, nor can we believe, that Mary's conception was in any way different from ours.

Finally, "be[ing] vague ... to allow both sides of the coin to be believed" is simply not acceptable to us. We require a true unity in faith, not a superficial unity hiding deeply seated problems. Do you think the Fathers ever considered "be[ing] vague ... to allow both sides of the coin to be believed" when it came to Arianism? Perhaps St John of Damascus was wrong. Maybe he should have "be[en] vague ... to allow both sides of the coin to be believed" when addressing the Iconoclasts. I understand your desire for unity. After discussing the Catholic Church's recent dealings with the Lutheran Church in PRE, it seems to me that Rome does not object to a superficial unity based on vague definitions that both sides know are not truly agreed upon. However, this "unity" is not acceptable to Orthodoxy.