Defending the papal church, without reason

Reading here both the mail and the commentary I want to say that I agree with the commentary or response to the mail. I recognize the Bishop of Rome as being in the seat of Peter the apostle, and as such having a symbolic presidency, but cannot accept that from that follows infallibility. There is not such a thing in humans. I was born in the Roman Catholic Church, and as soon as I learned about the Orthodox Catholic Church wonder about the fact that it has the word Orthodox as his name, recognized by the Roman Church and felt that for some reason it is so. Later, with the years I learned also that something very important seems to be lacking in the Roman Church and then found that this very thing is not lacking in Eckhart teachings and it is also not missing in the Orthodox Church. Now that a new Bishop of Rome has been chosen and looking at the invitation and assistance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, I have great hopes that these things are going to be properly addressed. Maybe, this is precisely the Pope called Petrus Romanus, as in Malachy words, and if the unity of the Church is going to be achieved, it certainly requires a redefinition, on the part of the Roman Church, of what the Presidency of the Roman Bishop means and, who knows, maybe we will not need another Pope, as we know now, and the Bishop of Rome will only be that, which is already all it is. My is the view of a lay christian that calls himself just Catholic and living in Latin America. I just discovered this very interesting website while reading and searching about Meister Eckhart.

Jose de Jesus.