Listen. I’ll be honest with you here. I’m not really interested in discussing out of context cut and paste snippets that can be construed into whatever position someone wants to make.
I don't see how you could construe anything in the post to make it mean what you want it to mean
I understand, though there there is nothing in context that contradicts what i said, while it supports Constantinople as being the seat (if it has one seat) of the Eastern Orthodox in recognition of its Ecumenical Patriarch, and the use of the term “church of Rome,” and the distinction it denotes as being often necessary due to the differences in doctrine and claims btwn the Latin church and the Orthodox Cathlolics.
But none of which denies the imperfect union that they have, or the official “full communion”of UCs with Rome, despite some issues, or that MM could have been privy to expressions of bias.