That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'? So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.
I don't get this at all.
If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.
It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way: that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.
Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.
If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.
I think I understand Roman Catholicism pretty well. I think everyone realizes that the Pope is aware of the Melkite position. What we're asking, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, is why does he allow it?
I really don't think I do understand the Roman Catholic Church all that well. While her scope is 'universal' across the planet, there are times she seems like a huge monolithic giant and other times when she seems like a large co-operative apartment complex with tenants at each other's throats about co-op rules and regulations. Whether she truly is a 'different religion' than Orthodoxy depends, I think, upon the moment.
Like many of us, I am perplexed by seemingly contradictory strands of teaching and 'enforcement' on her part. Some days I lean towards Father Giryus' statement that although we have superficial similarities we are two different religions. Other days, I lean the other way.
What one means by being a 'different' religion is the kicker though. If you put a Hindu next to a Jew next to an Animist, it is easy to determine that they are all 'different' religions. But put an American Lutheran next to an Episcopalian next to a Methodist next to a Presbyterian next to a.... you get the picture... Are those 'different' 'religions' or are they one religion - trinitarian Christian but different 'sects'?
An argument can be made that the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches are such that are less than the progressive differences among the 'sects' I mentioned in the prior paragraph.
Many here are converts from Protestantism, I suspect that it is easier for you to see Orthodoxy and Protestant denominations as being different 'religions.' Since most Protestants I know clearly see Catholicism as being a very different belief set as compared to any particular Protestant sect, I suspect converts from Protestantism have no problem viewing us as being a totally different 'religion' from the RCC.
Those who left Byzantine Catholicism for Orthodoxy for the most part view themselves as continuing in Orthodoxy upon the correct path from which their former Church deviated. I know that to be the case with respect to the many individuals I have known over the years who made that journey. However, few, if any of them viewed Eastern Catholicism as being a 'different religion.' I am curious therefore, as to how converts to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism or vice-versa view their former affiliation.
By know you are probably as confused by my post as am I.
Actually that is my point, for when we speak of things like faith, belief and religion we often run into difficulty explaining our points of view within the limitations of our language and most of the time we tend to talk past each other.