The Balamand Declaration

See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

Note this extract from http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=994266.20;wap2

"In the spirit of the ecclesiology of communion and because of the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, it was observed that, in the effort to re-establish unity, what is involved is achieving together the will of Christ for those who are His disciples and the design of God for His Church, by means of a common search for full agreement in faith. It is not a question of seeking the conversion of persons from one Church to the other. This latter type of missionary activity, which has been called "uniatism", cannot be accepted either as a method to follow or as a model for the unity which is being sought by our Churches."

Then "what type of unity is being sought?", one is left to ask. One commentator on fisheaters forum remarks:

I did not know the Spouse of Christ had a "sister". From all hirelings, Jesus deliver us.

After the Balamand Declaration, the Vatican issued a statement in "correction of" (though not an official repudiation of) the Balamand declaration, in which it was said, that the Catholic Church and the "Orthodox Churches" were not equivalents or forming together the Body of Christ, because the Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, has no separated limbs. In fact the Vatican II decree on the Oriental (schismatic) Churches is more clear than "Unitatis Redintegratio", because in it the "subsistit" of the New Theologians is absent and the Catholic Church is still - as traditional dogma has learnt over and over - and will forever be the same as the Church of Christ.

But the Balamand Compromise never was revoked.

Its' just conservative and progressive (moderately Modernistic and progressively Modernistic) groups in the Vatican doing their own "thing" under the authority of "Vatican statements".

But this illustrates clearly enough that the Vatican and the local Eastern rite Catholic patriarchs, exarchs and bishops, will not receive other "Orthodox" bishops into full communion with the Catholic Church, because this would hurt the idol called "Ecumenism" and the diplomacy of the Latin rite Catholics in Moscow.

Only the Transalpine Redemptorists of the Eastern rite continue to talk, discuss and meet (as St. Francis of Assisi did when he met with the sultan, treating the sultan with respect, but defending Catholic dogma and Jesus Christ against the false prophet Mahomet) with the Eastern rite "Orthodox" bishops of the Cerularian Great Schism of 1054. The Greek Catholics don't do so any longer.

The Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay would even meet with the pertinaciously schismatic and anti-"Popish" Greek "Orthodox" monks of Mt. Athos (an independent schismatic Greek rite monks' state in the north of Greece), just to talk and convert them. Even if it would endanger their own lives. (Mt. Athos - if it were not schismatic - would be a great blessing for the world-wide Catholic Church, as its traditions and buildings and icons are much older than the schism, and because Mt. Athos has its own bishops and celebrates the splendid Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom of Constantinople.)

But the present-day, Modernistic Vatican would not even approach them for "proselytism". It would just "apologize" for past excommunications and use the well-known 40 year old Conciliar wishy-washy diplomatic language which smells of heresy against dogma.