It's kind of funny that you should bring that up, Keble.
After posting the Touchstone link, I occurred to me that I myself hadn't read the article in awhile, and was probably due for a re-read. What I noticed this time is that at a couple points, Fr. Hart seems to assume agreement with the Catholic idea that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "sister churches" -- a phrase which you Orthodox generally reserve for your fellow Orthodox (EO & OO).
For instance, out of the four examples he gives,
Two. A Catholic publishing company, specializing in apologetics, proudly advertises a book about the claims of the papacy by stating in a blurb that this book is responsible for having led to the “conversion” of a large number of Orthodox priests to Catholicism.
He here implies (among other things) that the term "conversion" mustn't be used to describe Orthodox becoming Catholic. (I agree, however, with him that the publishing company sounds unjustifiably polemical.) More telling, I think, is his next couple sentences:
Three. An Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, the son of a famous Protestant thinker and writer, publishes his interview with another famous former Evangelical in the tabloid-style paper that he edits. Though the two are old friends, the one interviewed has become a Catholic. In the course of the interview, the Orthodox editor unsubtly tries to press the Catholic towards acknowledging that perhaps he should go “beyond” the Catholic Church and into Orthodoxy.
I mean, aren't Orthodox supposed
to encourage Catholics to "go beyond the Catholic Church and into Orthodoxy" (from the Orthodox point of view, I mean)? Granted of course that there are good and bad ways of doing that; but it seans to me that Fr. Hart is really assuming here that when Catholics say "the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are sisters" that everyone else has to agree.
(Despite the foregoing caveat, I do really like Fr. Hart's article overall.)
But to get back to what you said:
Back when Al Kimel still had a blog (and before he was repriested) he would occaisionally put out a "you've got to get out of there" post directed at the Episcopalians reading the blog. And he would inevitably opine that either Rome or Constantinople was an acceptable destination. What inevitably would happen is that someone Orthodox (and generally a convert) would jump in and chide him for suggesting that Rome was in any way acceptable. I don't know whether it was some lingering Anglican taint that prompted him, but he always seemed surprised that it happened. It didn't surprise me at all, because I'd been seeing it for years intra-Orthodoxy.
I remember some of that. (This was the "Pontificator" blog, no?) Anyway, perhaps this is similar, i.e. perhaps Fr. Kimel was assuming that Catholic and Orthodox are "sister churches" and
assuming that everyone else thought so too, and thus was a little shocked to find Orthodox who didn't think so.