2. We are in Schism with each other. Your terms are that of polemics, not of desiring reuninification. We are not in heresy - unless you are going to say that an infallible Church is not really infallible (see question 1)
3. Protestants have a valid excuse, since they deny that the Church's infallible teachings are infallible. You, on the other hand, appear to be hypocritical by calling the Latin Church heretics, YET, proclaiming that the Church of the first millenium was infallible. Can't have it both ways, brother. Either the Church never was, or remains infallible in its teachings.
4. I can quote numerous Orthodox men who say similar things about Rome and the Latin Church. What does the Cardinal of Paris have anything to do with the question I posed to you?
5. The Pope is not sinless. Do you recall in the Scriptures when Paul found it necessary to remind Peter of his behavior in Galatians Chapter 1? The Pope apparently trusted that the bishops would do a better job of watching the flock. Isn't this the rule of thumb in the East? Allowing the Bishops to watch their own flocks without outside interference? Now, you say we should have a more centralized government of Church? Which would you prefer, NO Pope, or an overly disciplinary Pope? Seems you are arguing for BOTH simultaneously...
Granted, I would have to believe that MOST of the Popes of the past would have "come down harder" on those bishops responsible - PRESUMING that Rome even KNEW about what was happening! Do you think that the priests and bishops have some sort of daily report in to the Curia? As I said before, Rome doesn't deal with such matters until it is obvious that the Bishops can't handle things. In the sexual abuse cases, Rome allowed the US Bishops as a group to submit a plan of action - again, Rome doesn't micromanage. Rome here is not dealing with a matter of faith and morals. NO ONE ever questioned whether sexual abuse was WRONG or that the Church was taking the wrong stance! It was universally condemned. Thus, where is the "heresy"? While technically, the Bishop of Rome has the power to act within another Bishop's jurisdiction, in practice, that Bishop is expected to take care of things. You are misled in thinking that Rome has the inclination or desire to overrule the actions of how another Bishop runs his particular flock. As long as the Bishop is not teaching outright heresy, Rome generally stays out of such matters.
Shouldn't have the Bishops in the US settled the matter by themselves? Hindsight is 20/20. This says very little about the office of the Pope. At the worse, it merely says Pope John Paul II was not a disciplinary Pope (which history bears out as true. Most philosophical/scholarly Popes are not disciplinary types)
Regards
1. I fail to see the relevance.
2. The Orthodox view regarding the Catholics being in schism is shared by the Catholics in fact. The Catholic church repeatedly states that there can be no healing of the schism without other churchs confesing Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church is no more up for compromise than are the Orthodox. Heresey is black and white you either follow doctrine or don't.
3. The Latin church departed from the 7 councils when the Bishop of Rome changed the creed. Since then the Bishop of Rome has added a handful of other heretical beleifs to Catholic doctrine. Protestants and Catholics are both from the same vein of heretical addtion to doctrine after the 7 councils.
4. The fact is the Catholics have only recently stopped waging war on the Orthodox. The Cardinal of Paris made those statements before during the Crimean war, which the Catholic likely started.
5. I have repeatedly stressed that within the Latin church the pope should be exercising the patriarchial authority given a patriarch over his church. The church in America has one patriarch the one in Rome. I have said this repeatedly and it has nothing to do with a centralized church leader. The Patriarch of Moscow defrocked a priest for performing a same sex marriage. Why does the Bishop of Rome refuse to use his patriarchial authority to govern his flock? The Vatican has known about things for quite some time. The moment the matter came to the Vatican's knowledge the Bishop of Rome was responsible for doing something. There is no precedent for patriarchs knowing of heretical bishops and allowing them to continue in heresy it is the job of the patriarch to combat just that.
The Patriarch of the Latin church is the Bishop of Rome.
A case can be made for not using his power in Ukraine if in fact we are going back to the pre-1054 notion of the primacy, and the pope is viewing the Uniate church as the modern Patriach of Kiev.
Such a case cannot be made for Ameirca, the clear Patriarch of the Latin church in America is the Bishop of Rome.