We do not disagree or break down into liberal/conservative factions concerning the liturgy, theology, ecclesiology, etc. of the Church. As you say, the liturgical life of the Church is the great equalizer in many ways.
The liturgical life of the Church is the equaliser in the sense that it prevents much of the "division" between "liberal" and "conservative" from becoming a chasm (as it is in the RCC...I agree with you and others on that) but don't underestimate the power of human beings to ignore, twist, etc., even within a heavily traditional liturgical framework. I've seen it at all levels of multiple jurisdictions of variable "ethnicity".
The RCC situation creates a context in which conservative and liberal wings are instead reinforced, such that now there are "Traditionalist" Catholics versus...other Catholics, I suppose.
Well, people are people everywhere, of course. That doesn't vary according to jurisdiction. But my point is more that while such things are not emphasized or reinforced in Orthodoxy, they are in the Roman communion, precisely because of a theological or philosophical belief held by many in the Latin Church that, for instance, Byzantines and Latins and all manner of Syriacs, Copts, etc. can coexist under one banner ("Catholic"), so long as they submit to Roman ecclesiology (you will notice, I hope, that "Catholicity" across that communion is defined by communion with the Roman Pope and submission to his ultimate universal authority and jurisdiction, rather than Rome's communion with its various Eastern compatriots; this is an ecclesiological and in some sense theological matter for them, while it is heresy to the Orthodox). This is what I mean when I write negatively against Rome's attempt to be all things to all people.
In more modern times it has also grown to include many who do not affirm Christ at all...but that's probably a subject for another discussion. My point is that the impulse is the same in any case: We can all be in communion with Rome, since Rome subsumes many different theologies, political views, etc. and simply declares them to be compatible with one another.
I agree 100%, and have made similar points elsewhere on this forum and in real life. The authority of the Roman Pontiff is, functionally if not really, the only non-negotiable teaching of Roman Catholicism. Submit to that, even in name only, and rebel against anything else all you want. Reject that, and no matter how much you uphold the rest of the "traditional" faith, you're scum.
I think that as concerns Rome specifically, they have been separated from Orthodoxy for long enough that we are actually looking at ontological differences that divide us. Even a very reverent and traditional (whatever that means in a Latin context; I'll let them fight that out amongst themselves) Latin liturgy is unacceptable for the various doctrinal innovations added to it, even though it might be nicer to listen to or observe or whatever.
I agree with you more than I disagree, but this is one instance in which, at least from an OO point of view
, I think you're overstating the case. The Roman Catholics certainly hold heretical beliefs, and we don't regard them as a part of the Orthodox Church. But when our Churches implicitly (or in some cases, explicitly) accept the validity of their sacraments, I don't think you can say that their liturgy is "unacceptable for the various doctrinal innovations added to it". Either those innovations are not considered by our Church to be something that invalidates the entire liturgy and priesthood, or our Church is mistakenly generous in their view of Roman Catholicism. Make the latter case if you want (it would be an interesting discussion), but that's a separate thread and not as an open and shut a case as you might want it to be.
Though I agree that taste generally is a subjective matter, beauty is not.
Really? I'm not in agreement with that as a general principle, though I think within the context in which you're probably thinking of it (based on what I've read in your other posts), I can at least see where you're coming from. This Pope is probably not spending much time watching the Kardashians or reading Twitter or whatever. He has refined tastes that speak to a certain depth of character compared to the sort of base mass culture that most people have been inculcated to accept as normative. (Am I close? I'm really trying to see how this means something/why I should care.)
Do you reject the idea that beauty is an objective thing, or is it always "in the eye of the beholder"? I affirm the latter in terms of "taste", but I think as Christians we would also affirm that beauty is objective. It is of God, reveals something of God, and directs us toward God. It is no less objective than truth. But this also is an entirely different discussion.
At any rate, where I disagree, if I am reading you correctly, is that by virtue of making such statements, he is de facto moving towards Orthodoxy. We will perhaps wait and see, but I am of the opinion as of today that nothing said in the interview substantiates such hope.
No, I agree with you. I don't think the comments, on their own, indicate that he is moving towards Orthodoxy in any substantially meaningful way. But they're also a far cry from Pius IX. I don't think it's wrong to recognise that and applaud it, even if it's not enough on its own to get one across the finish line.
That just means you're not spiritually schizophrenic.
Well that's a relief. Can I get that on some sort of frameable certificate?
Rejoice not in your framed certificate, but rejoice that your name is written in heaven.