You wrote:
"This is the point where your stubborn defense falters."
My defense has been neither stubborn nor did it falter. You have mounted no defense because none is possible. That is why you yet again attack without any evidence whatsoever to prove your point about Gallitzin making a political conversion.
"The Orthodox faith he was baptized is the Christian faith."
According to you. That does not change the reality of things nor does it change his story nor does it mean his reconciliation was political.
"His decision to switch denominations midstream indicates other motivations."
Utter nonsense. There was no "midstream". He was baptized Orthodox. He was raised as nothing. Only when he was 17 did he reconcile with the Church. In between birth and 17 he essentially lived no religious life. Also, the Catholic Church is not a denomination. I wouldn't even refer to the Orthodox churches as denominations in this context either. They are Churches. Protestants have denominations. Catholics and Orthodox do not.
"Yes, political ones."
Wrong again. You have yet to provide even the smallest scrap of evidence of such an assertion.
"Certainly not faith based ones."
Except that his own words and his entire life from then on show you to be hopelessly wrong. That's exactly why you offer no evidence of what you assert.
"You no doubt are aware of the millenia old tensions between the Eastern and Western Christian beliefs."
More so than you. That's why I don't make the mistake of calling the Catholic Church or the Orthodox churches mere denominations.
"Well goody; so did lots of wonderful priests."
Yes, and they do are sometimes canonized. Apparently you did know that. St. Alphonsus comes to mind immediately.
"But the RC hierarchy should look to someone else to canonize."
Nope. The Catholic Church should look at those who were holy for canonization. Gallitzin, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, was a holy man. And you should look toward learning about what you post.
The Catholic Church should look at those who were holy for canonization