Javl,
I have frequently found that when I express disagreement with some aspect of Catholicism, Catholics tell me that I “don’t understand,” or in this case, don’t “know,” Catholicism. If by “know” you mean the knowledge that comes from full participation and agreement–sure, I don’t “know.” But I do understand the position you articulate–I just disagree with it. There is more to the unity of the church than everyone signing off on a set of beliefs and submitting to the Pope’s authority. This is a distorted and truncated vision of unity.
I repeat: for St. Ignatius and for the early Fathers generally (I would argue that we first see this in 1 Corinthians), unity means that the Christians in one place gather around one altar under one bishop. Your Communion has chosen to ignore this aspect of the Tradition. That is your choice. But you do not have the right to tell those of us who accept this part of the Catholic heritage that we “don’t understand” or are just making a fuss over nothing. This appears to me to be as essential a part of what the Fathers say about the Church as is the unity of all local churches through the communion of their bishops with one another. And I think it’s more essential than Roman primacy per se, although I don’t expect to persuade you of that. (And yes, I believe in Roman primacy.)
Edwin
Back in those days, and even up until relatively recently, everyone who lived in a particular city was of the same culture and language. So, it would have made sense to have them all under the same Bishop - and if you were in the East, he was an Eastern Bishop and if you were in the West, he was a Western Bishop. Makes sense, for back then.
However, nowadays, with globalization in most industries, it’s rare for people to remain in the city they were born in, and even more rare for people to remain in the same city where their parents were born, or where their cultural practice comes from.
I live in Calgary, which has a reputation for being very “white” and “red-neck” - in spite of that reputation, most of the people I work with are from India, the Philippines, and South America. This city also has well-established populations of Ukranians, Russians, Chinese, and French. These families and communities continue to practice their culture and religion in their language of origin, in spite of the fact that they now live in the “cowboy country.”
I expect that every reasonably sized city in the world is experiencing the same thing.
Should people who come to Calgary be required to give up their culture and language in favour of English-speaking Masses in the Latin Rite, simply because their Dad’s boss has said, “You will now move to Calgary”?
Or, how, exactly, do you propose to accommodate the diversity that we see in the modern world? (Perhaps Bishop Henry should be in charge of the Ukranians and the Russians, as well?
Then we come back again to the problem of people being integrated against their will into the Latin Rite.)
I’m sure you’ll always find something to criticize. After all, when certain higher-ups in our Communion were trying to suppress the other Rites and make everyone Latin, your side all got your panties in a bunch then, too. 
) is that the Pope is to be respected as the Chair of Peter, the first among equals, the coryphaeus, the head of the table, whose opinions and guidance are to be cherished, respected, and seriously considered at any council or deliberation about morals or theology.
)