You just stole my ideas whilst rejecting my conclusions. Seriously man, as I tried to explain, the position you adopt is just as dishonest as its opposite extreme, for it selectively accepts certain aspects of the Church's Life whilst rejecting others. If your concern was for the Truth alone and nothing but the Truth, then you would consider the Life of the Church as a whole and accept it as it is; you would not be pushing certain aspects of the Church's life to their extreme logical conclusions. Needless to say, I believe you're influenced, whether intentionally or not, by other motives.
Gosh...I hate it when I look like I'm plagiarizing
But really those ideas were posted by me on another website (well not in its fullness as you put it). I just noticed that the language is something intriguing, and I never thought the Pope himself would express it as such (although I felt there were implications beforehand). I really did though look past the condemnation against Max Michel and saw this as something I have seen for the first time an expression of agreement that both "families" locally work together as if they consider one another sister Orthodox churches.
But if anything, you might be right. I don't know. This whole issue is a bumpy ride. I just see it this way: if they were never of the Church to begin with, the dialogues should give us a different tone, or at least clarify itself, and perhaps declarations like these are, as you and I agree, are pointless. I mean people have lost faith in Orthodoxy (even faith in Christianity) over this stuff. As much as it sounds hopeful, to many it's also heartbreaking. If I do not believe in what I believe, I feel that the Church then truly has lost its defenses against the gate of Hades.
As for the canon, perhaps they are talking about a local canon? I personally have yet to find this canon, but I was interested more in the implications of this agreement.