[daniel1212]

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.

[Titanites]

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.

I didn't want to divert into a separate discussion about the Eastern Orthodox, but it looks like I need to get some clarifications. What do you mean by Orthodox Catholics? The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is not Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not sure what point your making by bringing in the Eastern Orthodox. There is no doctrinal difference between the Latin Catholic Church and the UGCC.

But none of which denies the imperfect union that they have, or the official “full communion”of UCs with Rome, despite some issues,

The imperfect union who has? What issues?