O Lord!...And my critique of the errors of the Latin Church does not mean that there are not people in it who love Jesus far more than I ever will in my disordered life. It simply means that there are things in it with which the Early Fathers would not agree.
You have already formed the verdict then, the "errors"? You think the Patristic witness is monolithic? It is not. You think the faith of the Church is established by a Patristic synthesis (though it is an important component)? It is not. Purgatory is an innovation but not Toll Houses? You think the Church properly developed doctrine through eight centuries and then stopped? You (and others) limit God in the scope of His plan of salvation -- can't be an Immaculate Conception? Merit is denied but the East is more accommodating to what is considered Pelagian tendencies?
There is still a Ruthenian Recension and Carpathian chant tradition: Liturgicons (in translation) can always be improved. "Teal Terror" caught on but it's an unfortunate misnomer; it was originally dubbed the "Teal Tyrant" on this forum (by me) since it was inflexible and draconian in its selection. It has done a lot of good but could have been done better in keeping with the chant traditionS
. It has given us needed improvements (for instance Ressurectional Troparia Tone 3 and 8; the eight tones for the "Our Father" and Alleluia, etc.) and overall availability. The work for improvement and restoration can still continue. As happens too often, extremes catch on and prevail: the difference between the characterizations of "Terror" and "Tyrant" is the difference between flame and light.
I find that selective reading and prejudicial considerations make conclusions easy and straightforward but wrong.
Vain Fantasy that a great number of Orthodox reject out of hand.
A great number? Not all?
Never found in the writings of the Early Fathers.
As I've said and say again, the faith of the Church is not established on Patristic writings although they are a very important witness.
The Church developed doctrine. It didn't invent new doctrines out of whole cloth.
Have you ever actually listened to an Orthodox priest explain the problems with the Immaculate Conception? No. Of course you haven't.
Here you presume to have knowledge of things that you do not know. A trend?
They are many and they go to the heart of our anthropology and soteriology, not to mention they take away from the glory of the Theotokos by making Her unable to sin. Once Her choice to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in holiness is taken away, She becomes an entirely different person than we are, and this creates a real problem when you think of the fact that Jesus gets His human flesh, given for the salvation of the world, from Her. If She is not human and born as we are, then the whole thing runs off the rails.
You apparently have accepted a caricature of the doctrine, perhaps the uncritical acceptance of the biased explanation of that Orthodox priest I didn't consult.
I won't even TRY to dignify what the bishops of the Ruthenians did to the Liturgy with the Teal Monstrosity.
The Teal book is primarily a book of chant. The scope of the chant there is far beyond what I, as an aspiring cantor, yearned for in the early 80s. It's implementation, like the liturgicon, was heavy-handed but at least it was less arbitrary. I look upon it as a work in progress. In 2007, as a deacon, I requested and accepted inactive status rather than celebrate using the liturgicon. I know and have experienced the issues and the misrepresentations first hand.
Many difficulties do not necessarily add up to a doubt. Question and keep searching and hear out all sides of the issues.