Oh yes, I've read it several times, in fact each time you have posted it. The problem lies with the Eastern European churches which were formed as part of the expansion of the Papacy and various Roman Catholic monarchs into the canonical territory of, mostly, Moscow. Their purpose was to seduce the local Orthodox population into an obedience to Rome and their new, foreign Roman Catholic overlords. This is not at all how the other Byzantine, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian or Thomistic/Oriental Churches came into being and thus those Churches which indeed should be considered particular Churches, fully sui juris, within the The Church are not even remotely a problem and in fact are in many instances in their relations with Orthodoxy, an example of what a reunited Church might look like.
In all honesty, NYer, I suspect that if you spoke with any Maronite or Melkite priest or hierarch who felt he could be completely candid (and maybe they couldn't), they would tell you the same thing.
At least some of these churches owe their beginnings to the political events in the Middle East of the Crusades or to the influences of various degrees of Western colonialism, so there are more parallels to Uniatism than perhaps meets the eye, even if the parallels may be more distant in time. Also, some of these Eastern Rites are so tiny that they are absolutely dwarved by the church they are supposedly competing with, and that makes the situation less contentious.
And in each and every instance, the Roman church convinced some people and or clergy to leave the jurisdiction of their church and come under the jurisdiction of Rome. Parallel church structures were set up in direct competition with the "original." Ask the Armenians what they think about the Armenians who joined up with Rome...
The only situations in which nearly entire dioceses went over to Rome was when the power of the state was there to enforce it, as in some corners of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
It is good that the Melkites and the Antiochian Patriarchate seem to get along, but this is an anomalous situation that is unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere. Rome cannot have it both ways: they cannot both have parallel churches that compete with the Orthodox *and* expect that the Orthodox churches being "paralleled" are going to be excited about having warm relationships.
From all that I have read, which is limited, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church in Russia ministers to those catholics who came into the country at different periods. Admittedly, this is not a subject I have researched very extensively.
I suspect that if you spoke with any Maronite or Melkite priest or hierarch who felt he could be completely candid (and maybe they couldn't), they would tell you the same thing.
Indeed that response was given to me last month ;-D. The bishop affirmed to my pastor that the Maronites do not 'evangelize', especially amongst other catholics. Which of course brings us back to the topic at hand. IF the Catholic Church does not evangelize in Russia but Orthodox christians wish to join the Catholic Church, why would the Orthodox Church have a problem with that? It's a personal freedom to choose one's religion, is it not? Does the Russian Orthodox Church have such power over the state to prevent the establishment of other christian churches in Russia?