Thomas, it was never my intention to try and "prove" EOy is "better" than RCC.
I've spent 30 minutes typing a response up, and just before posting I regret typing the response because it's probably too harsh and defensive. However so I don't feel as if I just wasted 30 minutes of my life, I will post with the hope that you will forgive me for any offense I have or will cause. I can make excuses but I won't. I'm far from the Kingdom (whatever that means, these days I'm not sure) but here's the reply anyway:
Nick the Pilot has been wondering what are the uniquely "eastern"/non western ideas and theology within EOy in contrast to western Christianity. And I was merely attempting to point out these differences of a general nature. Of course to sum up "western christianity" in a few words, or even a few books would be impossible. But there are over arching themes that run throughout the western Church, and it is these generalized ideas that I was attempting to contrast with how most EO theologians view the faith.
Thomas Merton, a Trappist (which is entirely Catholic, by the way) was one of many who had a profound spiritual link with the Far East, and was highly regarded there; Bede Griffiths was a Benedictine monk who established an ashram in India, and coming the other way the Dalai Lama observed how 'at home' he felt among the Dominican Community in Oxford and how their lives ran in parallel.
As I said, the only way one can really get into Orthodox monasticism and see the vast difference between say Catholic and Orthodox, is to read stuff written by Orthodox monks. I'm not saying EO monks are "better"...just different. Personally, I think many of our "holy fathers" are just a bit . . . . off their rocker. I personally don't see how a bunch of guys on Mt. Athos spending their lives in solitude trying to acheive "theosis" is carrying out Christ's mission to the world, but to each their own. I'm the first to criticize my own Church. But this wasn't about my personal opinions, or I tried to not make it that. Only to contrast and show Christianity as a whole is not merely "Western", because as I said I think the world isn't divided along hard lines like that anyways.
The whole Palamite controvery was a distinctly western/latin vs eastern/greek issue. And it is still a hang up for many traditional Catholics who accuse EOy of being heretical due to the "essence/energies" debate.
One can't really lump Catholic and Protestant together from an Orthodox point of view. The Orthodox would contest the Protestant theologian on exactly the same points the Catholic would; likewise, where Orthodox and Catholic disagree, there is more in common than apart. Fundamental question do remain, but they are not insurmountable (the filioque dispute has, after so long, gome away, for example).
I wasn't trying to lump the RCC with "Protestantism" and in fact one cannot lump "protestantism" into one group either. But Nick seemed to be remotely familiar with "Christianity" on some level, however like most people, he was/is unaware of the different approaches within EOy, hence my pointing out these differences. Different approaches. Not right vs wrong. Just different. I'm sorry if I came across as holier than thou, but I figured my previous introduction pretty much summed up the fact that I wasn't trying to tout the superiority of EOy, which if you missed, I have serious issues with as an institution.
The incarnation of the Logos was first put forward by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, so a common tradition of Catholic/Orthodox — as a speculation, it is not a dogma (as far as I know) in either tradition.
St Gregory of Nyssa, again our common heritage, suggested that Adam and Eve themselves were not 'enfleshed' prior to the fall, so that throws a different light on the question. He further speculates that gender distinction was similarly a necessary condition of the enfleshment of humanity.
True on both points. However this is not the 2nd century, and the truth is both East and West look quite a bit different now than they did then. I of course could pick out how Eastern fathers saw the Pope as the head of the Church, and Western fathers who denied such a primacy for the Bishop of Rome. I could find Eastern fathers who accepted Augustine's views on sexuality, and Western fathers who accepted Photius's views on the Trinity, while Eastern Bishops rejected it. Indeed we can proof text the fathers east, west but to what end? It was never my intention to run down the Western Church only point out the differences that exist today, and that could be traced back in history thematically. Does this mean I think East and West cannot and are not one? Of course not. we got along just fine for 1000 years with these differences there's no reason we cannot do it again except IMO both our Churches are wrapped up in their own B.S. to care about actually solving any of our differences.
Er, excuse me ... might I remind you of the Typos of Emperor Constans II which sought to forbid theological debate? Or the increasing control of the Church by the Eastern Emperors? Or the rise of Constantinople as a Patriarchy, which saw itself as superior to the 'classical' patriarchies of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem ... because it was the seat of the Emperor? Or the iconoclastic dispute, when the East paid greater lip service to Islam than to 'classical' Christianity and slaughtered more of their own than the Roman persecutions? Or to the the hesychast disputes?
That has nothing to do with the context with which I intended my comment about EOy being "classically Christian". The context was in response to "do you believe that people have to believe in Jesus?" which I took as another way of asking "do you think the only way to God is through Jesus Christ?" In that sense, we are classically Christian, however there is a caveat in that we look at the issue from a different perspective. That's what I meant. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
I said nothing about icons, or corrupt Emperors, corrupt Bishops, iconoclastic heresies or Christians killing Christians. (which of course as you know, happened in the West as well, unless the western Church's wars with the "Arians" don't really count?)
I wrote:
The Divine Logos became enfleshed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus is God's perfect revelation to mankind, and complete authority is His.
You then answered:
Steady ... One could accuse you of Nestorianism on the strength of that statement, certainly an Orthodox theologian would require its clarification.
I don't care who or if an Orthodox Christian, Bishop, or anyone else accuses me of heresy. If I were talking to someone completely familiar with orthodox Christology, I might have used a different way of phrasing it, but then again, maybe not. When I talk the first thing through my mind is not "will someone think I'm a heretic if I say this incorrectly according to THEIR intepretation?) Trust me, there are a lot more reasons many EO would think I'm a heretic that has nothing whatsoever to do with a so called "misstep" in explaining the Incarnation.
It's funny that you brought up some of the big horrors within the Eastern Church, and of course all those problems you mentioned existed because someone didn't like how someone else phrased something in one or two little words, or even worse, one letter of one word out of place. And so then this person or that person, or that group or that entire See were all of a sudden "heretics". Should I remind you that Nestorius believed the Tome of Pope Leo totally validated and backed up his points about the Incarnation? (See even Leo agrees with me (Nestorius)) Does that mean I think Leo was a Nestorian? No. But it can be interpreted that way. I think the intention of what leo was getting at is more important than just splitting theological hairs. But I suppose that makes me a heretic amid ALL the Apostolic Churches.
Originally Posted by
NightPhoenix 
Several prominent Church fathers believed everyone would ultimately be saved, and Orthodox Christians (unlike Roman Catholics) are allowed to believe that this is a "possibility" though we cannot say all "must" be saved.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. Julian of Norwich, for example, had a vision of hell, and it was empty. Her "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well" is one of the most famous quotes from Catholic mystical and thelogical writing. Like your good selves, we hold that nothing is impossible for God.
Interesting! I've read the CCC several times, and I'm pretty sure it's quite specific, that Hell is absolutely eternal and there is simply no getting out for those who are there. I'd have to look up the reference but I'm sure it's there. Is the CCC wrong? If what you say is true, I certainly apologize for misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I have NEVER heard that in my entire life. It's certainly encouraging if true.
