Father, let me just preface by saying I hadn't really intended or desired a debate with my original post in the other thread, and so I don't really have the desire for an in depth debate. However, I will say that I see a clear distinction between the Romanians and Jerusalemites (does anyone happen to know the actual adjective for the Jerusalem Patriarchate?) falling out of communion and what has occured between the EO and the OO. This distinction being of course that the Romanian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate are both in total communion with Moscow, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. whereas the OO fell out of communion with all of the EO Churches, and the Copts only remained in communion with (and vice versa) the Armenians, the Syrians, the Ethiopians, and (for a time) the Georgians. Another distinction would be that the OO/EO schism has lasted for over a thousand years, whereas the Romanian/Jerusalem dispute will likely not last for two, if that.
As well Father, while all of the OO Holy Synods may well have declared the EO to be Orthodox (you would certainly know more about this than me, as I do not keep up with OO Synod declarations), this does not mean that they have endorsed your view that we are one Church, it merely means that they recognize the OO and EO as holding to the same faith, something I would agree with, as would - it would seem - most OO and EO. It does not mean that one group is not schismatic (in my view, the OO, and I would assume any OO who don't view both groups as one Church, the would view the EO as the schismatics). I know that many EO do in fact view the OO as schismatics, and I have read in many places that many OO view the EO as schismatics (especially the Ethiopians).
Do you mind telling me why you won't name EO bishops who commune OO? Is it perhaps because their Synods have told them not to as the Eastern Orthodox Church does not view the OO as being part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? If it is not, I do not know why you won't divulge this information.
Could you please point me to where the Antiochians and the Syrians say concelebration may take place? I know that they have said inter-communion can happen, as the Antiochians have said about the Melkites, IIRC (though, I am under the impression that in every instance where the Antiochians have said that someone who is not EO may commune in an Antiochian Church, and vice-versa, this is meant to be in an extraordianry circumstance, not a common thing).
I realize I am not Orthodox, but that has no bearing on whether or not my opinion is correct. As well, I am in the process of becoming Orthodox. I could just as easily say you are not EO and so cannot claim to have any idea about whether or not the EO consider the OO to be one church with them.
I will perhaps get around to responding to the rest of your post(s) later.
Andrew, can you please point to a document saying this?