No sir, it is part of the overall core of the differences, your own or any other Roman Catholic's unwillingness to see it, notwithstanding.
Where is your friend Pelikan, now? Not that any number of converts is binding upon establishment of truth -- but this particular one went a bit further East, as you have related to us here previously. Personally I know nothing much directly of him otherwise.
Whichever the reasons, there is some discord to that journey (East)by it's very fact of being, compared with that which you extract from him in the ways those things have been [seemingly] sought to apply. His own words bearing directly upon the matter (of his own opinions and reasons for going East as it were) could be of interest --- and of those I mean rather complete words of explanation, if any -- and not taken out of context of what else could be most bearing upon that, stray qualifiers on the matter included. Partial quotes, or just edited snippets, would not do...
Since I've not seen his own work, but have here seen a bit of extraction of snippets, I don't know what his open and complete thought could be in this particular regard --- and I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting for someone to tell me.
But as to Christians, this aspect of difference between those who could possibly be labeled "papists" and all the rest, is far from "means nothing", although at the same time, it is not "everything" either, for both better and worse, with that latter instance, the "for the worse" one could easily add a "sad to say".
The troubles persist, when there are those who maintain that to be in 'communion with' the bishop of Rome (thus fully in communion with Christ also?) it need be on terms unilaterally dictated by Roman Catholics (to be in Romish eyes "full communion") includes acceptance of such concept as there being a Monarchial bishop and the priesthood there also, themselves alone the center of the all Christianity, etc -- with the added concept that God indeed desired it to be that way. That last one is the real deal-breaker.
Whatever consideration of honor & respect Rome once had for reason of it's double Apostolicity, it simply was not, from earliest beginnings believed and considered, said in those times entirely irrevocably to be true in all regards which application of those concepts over span of long centuries later became, bit by conflated bit to the degree that Roman Catholics now try to pretend that it should have been and was the very design from the beginning (when the pretense of it "always was" from Ancient days is swept away).
Or else Newman wouldn't have had to come up with his 'from an acorn (which does not look like an oak) is "developed" the oak' --- for due care need be taken lest one end up like the Jews of old, having added by their own traditions that which God Himself did not decree or direct, but was by hand of man well blended in with all that was more truly of Him, even the Creator of Heaven and the earth.
These pretenses, both the idea that it always was as it is now, or that otherwise things (including but not limited to "papacy as know today) "developed" accurately according to plan of God (chaos home only far from Roman Catholic confine) is quite traceable enough in the various conceptual puff by puff expansions, albeit difficult to condense into a single volume, much less some note of discussion on these pages.
It only takes one small fact --- if not fitting into a "theory", or else needing scads of special pleading and explanation to cover-up for or redefine it so that it shall, to falsify any theory, and if not entirely, then not only leave grounds for further adjustment and refinement as to the theory (or set of them), but rather produce demand for "further refinement" to be done.
BlueDragon:
I am well aware he went East. He did, because that was his Slavic roots and his entire family tree, before somehow getting Lutheran [I think his roots are on the Czek border with Germany or there abouts]. Nevertheless, while he was a Lutheran, he never really pushed for renunion with say the Lutheran tradition and Rome. While he did go East, he also became a major proponent of the Eastern Orthodox and Rome reuniting to make again the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of the 1st millennium. I remember when John Paul II died, he wrote and off-ed piece that really was impressive and if I remember correctly, lamented that the Orthodox did not take up Pope John Paul II’s call for the Church to breath fully again, with both Lungs, Latin/Roman West and Greek-Byzantine East.
He wrote a 5 volume set on the Christian Tradition, I have in my personal library, the first 2 of that 5 Volume Set. One of the volumes I do not have does cover the split from Rome of the church of England, Luther and Calvin.
Here is the Letter that I was referring to. It was in the NYT Oped.