Can any Catholic explain why this is makes sense? >"Eastern

>>1658444
All the eastern churches at least nominally subscribe to a roman Catholic understanding of Dogma, aside from that they can pretty much do whatever they want

File: p25nyoS.jpg (131KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 640x625px

The church is not powerful enough to enforce strict dogmatic following anymore. If they pressure the eastern churches, they might just split off

>>1658480
How is that the Orthodox can maintain unity of doctrine better than Catholics, who have a Pope? Isn't the point of the Pope to ensure Catholics don't have to play the Anglican game of saying doctrine doesn't matter?

>>1658444
This is why the Reformation happened. The pope is an autist who constantly talks down to people. Henry the VIII did absolutely nothing wrong.

>>1660126
The Catholics could, but then they would have to start excommunicating people, which would piss off large parts of the laity who are more in it for cultural reasons than believing every letter of the catechism to be true.

>>1660142
Except the two groups mentioned in the OP *were* excommunicated. They only later entered into full communion much later.

>>1660275
And I am sure those groups at least nominally accept Roman Dogma, The Papacy almost certainly leaves anything beyond that to the eastern church itself.

>>1658444
The catholic church is dead since the 19th century when it ceased to be relevant and was tranformed into a imperial cult with the pope as the infallible emperor.