Hence, the reasons that Eastern Catholics, imho, need to decide are they Orthodox Or Roman Catholic. The so called bridge, has no legs.
Job,
I think you've touched on an important point here.
The Union of Brest, as well as the other unia, really did IMHO call for us to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." What happened, however, was that people like our brother Robster *politely* pointed out that communion meant unity of faith, and that was understood to mean we had to accept as dogmatic everything that Rome set forth as dogmatic. This was the status quo right up until Vatican II.
I see the unia as a hinderance to true Church Unity rather than a help. As long as there are Eastern Catholics (I use the term as those united with Rome), running around saying we can accept these creations even if we say we do not agree with them, Rome will not see the error of its ways.
Good point, but I think things are starting to change. In the past, when many Catholics--including priests and bishops--did not accept us as being truly Catholic, the tendency was to try and show that we were 'just as Catholic as anyone.' This attitude is dying out now, and even though it is by no means dead, I still think we are getting closer to a time when the ECCs will start asserting themselves.
I do agree that it is not good for ECs to be seen (or to see ourselves) as either 'RCs in OC clothing' or a kind of mongrel, 'neither fish nor fowl.' It is this kind of attitude that led to our being ineffective as a bridge.
Peace,
Deacon Richard
