The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.
Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.
I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.
Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.
This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:
a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.
b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.
I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.
I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....
Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.
As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.