Non-recognition is not offensive in and of itself.
Well, we do, and they are fully Catholic and you should call them with their name that is "Eastern Catholic" or "Greek Catholic"
How can they be fully Catholic when they use the Creed without the filioque?
If they are fully Catholic, then they should be referred to as just Catholic. And since they belong to the Vatican, they should be distinguished as Roman Catholic. The fact that they use Eastern rites and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is irrelevant. After all, I am always told that Catholic is Catholic.
Besides, if that is so, then you should be referring to the Eastern Orthodox as Catholics as well. But you don't. The "fullness" of catholicity in your mindset is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that is the only factor that makes all Catholics, well, Roman Catholic. Again, the Bishop of Rome does not have monopoly on the Catholic Faith.
But, [the Council of Trent is binding] for the Catholic Church
Again if you mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, than that's not so. It is binding to Catholic Church in the West and all its member Churches. The Orthodox Christians did not partake in that Council.
You are forgetting again, that our clergy is valid, our sacraments are valid and our apostolic succession gives us the apostolic authority that your Church also claims — and recognizes. We are just not in communion with your Bishop of Rome because the west changed its theology and no longer professes the same Orthodox Faith as we continue to do.
Until such time that we can resolve our theological differences, we can not possibly be in communion with each other, not out of some meanness but simply because inter-communion is a sign and not a means of achieving unity in faith. None of which makes any one of us less Catholic, just separate.
Inter-communion at this point is impossible. That does not mean we do not recognize the primacy of honor of +Peter's successors; we just can't be in communion with him.
Honestly I believe that the Orthodoxs should realized that the time of the emperors is gone, but the See of Peter is still there where +Peter has established it and it is still helping the Orthodox brothers although they never say a "thank you"
Let me say we very much appreciate Pope Benedict's fraternal overtures, as he gives everyone in the East as well as in the West a ray of hope that some movement towards eventual convergence is possible and is being actively worked on.
But, do not for a moment assume that we need you! Our Church survived despite oppression and without anyone's help because it is in the heart of its believers. For centuries under the Ottoman rule, the Serbs, Turks, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. kept their faith, as did the Russians under godless communism for almost a century of oppression. No one was there to help and "give us water."
Do not give if you expect something in return. True gifts are those that are given without any expectations and without offense if no gratitude is expressed. We do not need your charity. We want your friendship and fraternal love, but not charity.
But if you are going to approach us as brothers, then you need to step down from your high horse. You say the emperors are gone. True. So are the Franks. And with them gone, there should be no imperial or haughty anything, but apostolic fraternity among all Catholic Christians, East and West.
"How can they be fully Catholic when they use the Creed without the filioque?"
Well, the Catholic Church has never imposed the Eastern Catholic Church to include the filioque in the creed. This is because with or without it the faith would be the same.
The truth is that the Orthodox party wanted to have an exuse to separate from Rome (under the emperor pressure that wanted to controll the Church) and accused Rome of a meaningless theological accusation.
These are few citations from the Latin and Greek fathers of the Church that say the same thing and support the filioque.
Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Ambrose of Milan
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" ((The Holy Spirit , 1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).
The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
Council of Toledo
"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).
You always accuse the Catholic Church of having changed the faith, but it is me who continuously cite the fathers of the Church. When, I asked you a citation that would support your claim (divorce and remarriage, etc) you have done us nothing.
Are you so sure that it is the Catholic Church to have changed the faith? Why do the Fathers agree with the Catholic Church?
"No one was there to help and "give us water."
Are you sure for that? The Popes have done what they could to help the Orthodox from the Turks and the communist. When Constantinople collapsed it was defended by Catholic armies that were present even if small in number because of the arrogance of the Orthodox patriarch, The Ottoman empire was defeated and then collapsed because defeated by Western and Catholic armies, the communist collapsed because of the Western and Catholic pressure. Finally, the Catholic Church has always prayed from the Orthodox.
But you never say “thank you.”