In this, I totally disagree with you because 1 can never expresses the same truth as 2 unless something is added & 2 can never express the same truth as 1 unless something is subtracted.
Well, we have 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 in God according to hypostasis or perichoresis, so I don’t understand your conundrum at 2 in 1 or 1 in 2. God is beyond our numerical approach to these matters. We are expressing it the best we can, but we have come to the conclusion that our inadequate human expressions are in fact expressing the SAME Truth. When you have time, perhaps you can explain why 2 in 1 or 1 in 2 presents such a drastic divergence to you, in light of our common belief about the Trinity.
We pray what we believe, so the words of each prayer is so important. Roman Catholics, for example, in the Hail Mary are taught that the world is without end - this directly contradicts Tradition, Biblical & oral.
I have always understood that clause to refer to Eternity. Can we get some Latins here to affirm or correct my understanding? Is this saying, as our Orthodox sister claims, that this is referring to our material world?
I just give this as one example, there are to many for me to list as my two year old is jumping on my back, pulling my hair & climbing through my legs & pulling herself up on the bed using my pinky - ouch!
UNDERSTOOD!
If “through” is what Western Catholics mean, then why isn’t that what they actually say, pray & teach? “Through” is something I could believe, but “and” in no way expresses the same truth.
That approach is exactly what we avoid in the Catholic Church. We don’t ask Latins to give up their Traditions just to pacify us, just as we do not expect them to ask us to give up our Traditions just because they are not used to it. We understand that their “and” actually means “through” theologically, and that is enough. I can give numerous examples where this principle can be applied. Here are just a few:
Though Orientals and Easterns both share a doctrine on the Essence/Energy of God, There are Orientals who are really uncomfortable when Easterns say “The Energy IS God” or “the Essence IS God” because that makes it seem like there are other Persons in the Trinity. Should we try to understand and accept what you are really trying to say, or should we insist that you give up that particular Tradition for our sake?
Latins often regard standing during the elevation of the Host as a lack of respect for the Lord (instead, they kneel). Should they try to understand and accept what we do, or should we give up our Tradition to pacify them?
Certain Latins accuse us of denying the simplicity of God because of the Essence/Energy distinction. Well, at least for me as an Oriental, we do not deny the simplicity of God, despite our acknowledgement of the Essence/Energy distinction (I don’t know about you as an Eastern). Should we just give up our Tradition to pacify the Latins?
What you are proposing is, to many Catholics, nothing more than uniatism. We tried that, and it just doesn’t work.
Re: Different Canon Law - for one example (I can’t type much longer) a Rome Catholic who misses a Sunday Mass (or Saturday night vigil) without a valid reason is guilty of a mortal sin which if he/she dies unrepented causes him or her to go to hell. The Eastern Catholics can miss Divine Liturgy without fear of eternal damnation as they are not under an Obligation Law.
First of all, Latin Catholics are offered the Grace of Forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If they were not, then I’d see your point about the impropriety of instilling a “fear of eternal damnation.”
Secondly, does your Eastern Tradition not regard anything as worthy of hellfire? If it does, it would seem to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.” I mean, I see their “Sunday Obligation” rule as a way to instill the importance of worshipping God on the Lord’s Day, which is, in fact, a commandment of God. I really don’t see anything wrong with that purpose in mind. When I was young (in the COC), we were taught to love the Commandments and follow them – and we worship on the Lord’s Day out of love for God’s commandments (not out of fear of hellfire). Either way,
it is for the same purpose, to obey the commandment of God. We should never lose sight of that fact which unites us. Besides, I don’t think the Latin Church sets its rules to instill an unhealthy scrupulosity in people. You will find unhealthy scrupulosity in ANY Church, regardless of the Canons. Further, I doubt the majority of Latin Catholics go to Church because they have to. I believe they do so out of love for God.
Finally, I’m not sure that missing DL is exactly as relaxed as you make it seem. There is a definite limit that we as non-Latins can miss without incurring the sanctions of the Church. There is a point that missing DL can “miss the mark” (I think it is three?)
Blessings,
Marduk
My original question to you remains unanswered by you 
).
