Dear Catholic Eagle,
Could you tell me your interpretation of the word "perfidiis" as I don't know what it means.
I think the Orthodox thought on this subject matter is in short (we cannot say) as indicated below.
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion
(The union of the separated Churches with herself in one rule of faith is, as has been said before, a sacred and inward desire of the holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ; but without such unity in the faith, the desired union of the Churches becomes impossible. This being the case, we wonder in truth how the Most Blessed Pope Leo XIII, though he himself also acknowledges this truth, falls into a plain self-contradiction, declaring, on the one hand, that true union lies in the unity of faith, and, on the other hand, that every Church, even after the union, can hold her own dogmatic and canonical definitions, even when they differ from those of the Papal Church, as His Blessedness declares in a previous encyclical, dated November 30, 1894. For there is an evident contradiction when in one and the same Church one believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and another that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; when one sprinkles, and another baptizes (immerses) thrice in the water; one uses leavened bread in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and another unleavened; one imparts to the people of the chalice as well as of the bread, and the other only of the holy bread; and other things like these. But what this contradiction signifies, whether respect for the evangelical truths of the holy Church of Christ and an indirect concession and acknowledgement of them, or something else, we cannot say.)
In context at http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html
Did the Publican identify the Pharisee or did the Pharisee identify the Publican?
By the way the Latins tend to look at things from a legalistic sort of perspective.
Are we not discussing a subject in terms of what the Orthodox Church teaches? As you know there is a big problem when the locations and degrees of grace or who has it and why is articulated in a dogmatic way. Be advised we are not speaking dogmatically here, as it can lead to infallible statements like the below. None are speaking in the Latin way. Since you are in the unia are you not bond to believe what the Supreme Pontiff states? Had the Orthodox Christians and her Saints that you ask the intercessions been identified or referred to as schismatics or even heretics? I think that the Roman Catholic Church still teaches that in order to be truly Catholic one must be in communion with Rome.
Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Then you have Vatican II that from what I understand in short is saying these other people can be saved as well and if they are they must be in some way be within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church even if they do want to be. So much for free will. Surely there have been many Orthodox Saints who didn't want to be in union with Rome. I could go on but I see not point for any further commentary.