re: Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano bringing the questions of the Jesuit Bergoglio..

From your link to the podcast and it's transcript:

quote:

---

That’s a very important point in [the] Orthodox understanding of things, because it means that Peter was not the head of the Church as such. He was the leader of the Twelve, a very specific role.

---

So you, like us, hold Apostolic Succession to be true, valid, and unbroken to this day. At the same time, you affirm that there was a break in time (unsupported by Scripture or the early Church) that there was no Succession of Peter's role as "leader" of the twelve, and that Christ's visible Church on Earth had no visible leader as Jesus so clearly articulated when he pronounced that upon the rock of St. Peter he would build his church.

I do not understand how the Orthodox square their interpretation of numerous, ethnic churches which have far to often been tools of the state they exist within with the Lord's plan for a universal Church that features a divinely granted hierarchy.

Disregarding the Scriptural for a moment and looking at the practical, do you not recognize the Orthodox problem with authority as your various ethnic patriarchs act in such ethno-centric ways? Take your recent history with Patriarchs in Moscow. Are they acting in good faith in all matters? Are you faced with a "no true Scotsman" (or true Ortho) dilemma when trying to find which Patriarch is acting in good faith?

When the Moscow church accepts Roman Sacraments, are they correct? LINK

Is that up to you to decide? Are you adding a bit of Protestant-like moral relativism to your belief set to conform or reject things you do/do not like when they come out of a sister Church? What really binds you to other believers when your own internal divisions are so strong?