I find it very interesting that Patriarch Kyril has such cordial relations with eastern Catholic hierarchs who are operating within the canonical territories of the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, and yet cannot come to grips with an eastern Catholic hierarch who is doing the same within a canonical territory he considers to be his own. Having grown up in the thick of the Cold War, I am reminded of that saying we to used to apply to Soviet diplomacy: "What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable!"
While I won't disagree entirely with the first sentence, one needs keep in mind that the relationships between and among the Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch are perhaps the most cordial and collegial to be found in the Eastern and Oriental Christian world.
So, in consorting with the Catholic Patriarchs of that title, it isn't as if HH Kirill is likely to be perceived as disrespecting his EO or OO peers of the same title. Frankly, it wouldn't have surprised me all that much were the Antiochian Pentarchy to have met with him as a body.
(It wouldn't be the first time that some mix and match grouping of the 5 were found together with a distinguished visitor.) Keep in mind that these five men (and their Assyrian and Chaldean counterparts as well) are less concerned with the concepts of canonical territory than they are with the survival of their collective flock - a point they've made in singular and joint communiques on any number of occasions.
Many years,
Neil
