I can respect that.
Just so we're clear, though, the "schizophrenic" thing doesn't have to do with believing you're orthodox or not (at least not in the way that I'm using it), but rather the kind of situation that Choy described beautifully in response to one of my posts, where he said that he's not sure whether or not his church really accepts the IC, but that it's okay for Latins to believe it because it makes sense from their point of view (or some such; sorry, Choy, if that's not exactly it, but that's what I remember without looking it up...if I'm wrong, please correct me). That to me is schizophrenic because it is trying to embrace contradictory ideas (i.e., Orthodox theology, if the ECs are going to claim it as their own by virtue of it it being their theological patrimony, does not accept the IC), without really committing to anything in particular. This is what I meant when I said EC-ism is neither fish nor fowl. "We don't REALLY believe such and such (or we're not sure), but others can because we can see where they're coming from." Orthodox can see where the Latins are coming from too (or at least converts from Latin Catholicism can, like me), but we're not confused as to what we believe, and we won't say that others can believe in it so long as it makes sense to them. That's the difference I'm trying to capture by using that term.