All Orthodox who belong to jurisdictions that are members of SCOBA (CONFERENCE OF CANONICAL BISHOPS IN AMERICA) are in communion with each other. The Orthodox not in SCOBA are few. They are mostly consisted of small non-canonical groups who make a huge deal out of the old calendar.
However, Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek as well as His Apostles. So Aramaic was first spoken and only later translated into Greek and so on. People always seem to forget that simple and evident fact.
This is a non-point, as it is exactly the same in Aramaic. Here, listen to and read the eucharistic dialogue in Aramaic (well, Classical Syriac) from the Syriac Maronite Church, and notice how it still says “Take and drink it all of you” (2:08-2:15): youtube.com/watch?v=1mn6Ltcv978
Here’s an argument for Catholicism: catholicism. As is true with Protestants, you cannot speak of the Orthodox church, you can only speak of the Orthodox churches. These churches are obviously not catholic/universal.
So you are saying, there is only one Catholic Church, and from this one catholics exist different rites. Orthodox Church is the Eastern Rite, and the Roman Catholic Church is the Western Rite???
I am well aware of what your are stating. My point is that Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek. The NT might have been written in Koine Greek,but that is after the fact:
Why is that? How is it obvious that the Orthodox Church is not catholic? And why can you not speak of the Orthodox Church, but only Orthodox churches? (What does that mean?)
I think so too.
I thought my post was pretty good too (if I don’t say so myself 
). But reading your response to it I don’t see how to continue the conversation without it just being a one-way street. So I guess I’ll “give you the last word” as Bill O’Reilly says. 
No, not quite, but close. It is true that there is only one Catholic Church, but it is not the case that the Orthodox churches form the Eastern rites and the Roman Catholic Church forms the Western rite.
Well, that is a good argument for the Catholic Church, from a certain perspective.
Uumm…are you sure? I thought the Latin Rite (Roman) was the largest in terms of the faithful?
To my knowledge, in general the various rites would trace their lineage in the same way their Orthodox counterpart does. So no, they would not all trace their lineage to St. Peter. The reason there is an Orthodox counterpart to the Catholic rites (or a Catholic counterpart to the Orthodox churches, depending on how you look at it) is because there was an internal conflict in the body over whether to stay in full communion with the Catholic Church. So you have a split where some are in full communion with the Catholic Church and some are not, while the liturgies remain essentially the same. Some rites, such as the Maronite, are fully Catholic with no Orthodox counterpart.
The Latin rite is the largest Catholic rite, but that does not invalidate my claim that the Catholic Church is larger than the Roman Catholic rite.
Andrew, it is not my intent to be difficult but this is not phyletism, i.e., there is more to phyletism than just having local churches with a predominantly Irish, German, Polish and Mexican parish, please read what I’ve pasted by Metropolitan Jonah describing what phyletism is or you can read this article/podcast by Father Peter Alban Heers:
So what was the cause of the internal conflict? It must have been something real serious that it required the Church to split as it did, in so many way.
This is a particularly touchy and complicated topic, and one that you need to investigate on your own to some extent. The breaking point is known as “The Great Schism” or “The Eastern Schism.” It was the result of a series of religious and political tensions between the Eastern and Western rites/churches of Christianity. As you can imagine, the details and conclusions surrounding the schism are controversial par excellence.
I didn’t forget it, it simply has no bearing on the issue. First, we were talking about a Pauline passage, not a Gospel passage. St. Paul wrote in Greek. Second, even with regard to the gospels, we don’t have Jesus’ Aramaic sayings (scholarly surmises aside) we have the Koine Greek text compiled by the Apsotles or under their direction. My point was that in determining the meaning of scripture, the Greek original is preferable to an English translation.
You take them in the way they were presented, which really should tell you something.
You are about the 3rd person that has assumed my question has been answered and therefore I must concede my ignorance once again. I trust you guys have, in some way, answered my question but I haven’t seen it.
In the past, it was more common for the Bishops to withhold the cup from the laity. The PURPOSE of this decision was to teach an important theological truth: namely, that Christ is fully present in the host (as well as in the cup).
I don’t claim to speak for Nacho45, but fwiw I don’t see where he/she made such an assumption.
However, let me quote my question to you in case you forgot it: