That is an ecclesial, not ontological issue. The Church is not a sum of it parts. Where there is a valid bishop there is the ontological fullness of the catholic Church in her clergy, Eucharist and sacraments.
The Eastern Church is deficient because of her lack of communion with Rome, and Rome is deficient without the other "lung." Otherwise, the Pope would not be making reunion his No. 1 priority, and Orthodox prelates would not be working with him to find a way to reestablish that communion.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized
What is the "ontological" difference between the two particular Churches? You are tossing around a term which, I am beginning to think, you do not fully understand.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING.
Show me that the Orthodox Church is not ontologcially catholic and you can have your labeling. The point with caucus labeling is that just because the western Church uses a label doesn't make the western Church the only rightful owner of that label.
However, we have conventions which are necessary to accentuate our ecclesial/theological disagreements which are unfortunately confused by some as valid ontological differences, and then some in position of authority inadvertently make a fool of themselves by claiming that these conventional labels represent ontological differences, i.e. that the Orthodox are "guests" on caucuses labeled "catholic" because somehow the Orthodox are not ontologically catholic.
The objection, of course, is that your label needs to be fixed. Just because DemocRats use the label doesn't mean democracy is exclusively their prerogative! This is like labeling the caucus "human" and then proceed to label some participants as "guests" because some of you are more human then other.
I you don' want the Orthodox to particpate in Catholic caucuses, find another label.
The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
Orthodox is not correct either (there are Orthodox Jews as well). Eastern Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic (official), or even Greek, should be sued, just as Latin Catholic or Western Catholic or Roman Catholic (very conventional). Monopolizing the term Catholic by one group does not make only that group catholic.
Every conservative believer - no matter how bizarre his beliefs - ought to have a place on the RF where he can speak without being challenged by those who disagree with him. That is the point of the "caucus" label.
Along with a place to argue pro/con freely ("open" threads) - sanctuary is fundamental to Freedom of Religion, one of the strong principles of this Free Republic.
I understand your argument, but it isn't what the Catholic Church believes.
In Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church is not deficient as a result of the schism of the Orthodox Churches from the Church. She remains The Church. The Orthodox Churches do not, of themselves.
“Otherwise, the Pope would not be making reunion his No. 1 priority, and Orthodox prelates would not be working with him to find a way to reestablish that communion.”
Another reason for making this a high priority (to the Orthodox this may appear as the “No. 1 priority,” but I'm not so sure it is to Pope Benedict) is that it is that for which Jesus prayed.
“What is the ‘ontological’ difference between the two particular Churches? You are tossing around a term which, I am beginning to think, you do not fully understand.”
Sorry, but I have a personal rule about leaving discussions when the posts of my interlocutor have become condescending, at least in those parts where they have deterioriated thusly.
In any event, your argument is with the Catholic Church, not with me.
“Show me that the Orthodox Church is not ontologcially catholic and you can have your labeling.”
I've already posited that it's beside the point. I've written some rather long sections of posts about why. Our conversation has gone on fairly long, and I ask pardon that I don't want to repeat myself on the points that I've posited as to why the issue of ontology is beside the point anyway.
I think the horse is well-past dead, it seems to me that we've rounded the corner and begun to reiterate what's already been said.
As to the rest of your post, I've already answered most or all of it, but you seem to reject what I argued and why I think that what you suggest isn't quite right. That's fine, but I'm not going to re-argue it.
I will leave, if you like, the last word to you.
God bless you.
sitetest