How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.
Not sure if they were wrong or it's just you plotting.
Orthodox Christianity has not reached a consensus on the Balamand statement, in part because not all of the world’s Orthodox Churches participated in the gathering, and in part because controversy has risen over the “sister church” or “two lung” theory.
In any case, the Orthodox side insisted that, since there was no consensus regarding Balamand, the same topic would have to be treated in more depth before the commission could return to its theological agenda.
The leadership of the MP also convinced the people and clergy that the Balamand and Chambesy documents were not approved by the church leadership and so there is no need for alarm, although we note that these documents were also not rejected or even evaluated properly.
Neither am I wrong in this instance, nor am I plotting.
Just telling the truth, nothing more.
Yes, please read your "infallible" quotes, Michal. Only a few jurisdictions agreed to this agreement: Greece, Antiochians, and a few others. Russia and the OCA did not. So of course, the Slavic Orthodox will say that there was no consensus among all the Orthodox.
However, the Greek and the Antiochian priests and bishops with whom I have consulted all agreed that this Balamand Agreement was binding, and that is why they hesitated to receive Catholics, but would receive Protestants without hesitation. Weird, isn't it?
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church in Los Angeles has graciously received (by confession of faith or by Confirmation) a lot of Greek Orthodox who want their children to have a parochial school education and a discount too. So, it seems awfully one-sided. Not only that, it is sheep-stealing by offering discounts.