You must be really dense. The Latin Patriarchate ended in 64, from that time until Benedict changed it the church was still the Patriarchal Basilica of Constantinople. Since the Greek Orthodox used the church in the presence of the Apostle and the Pope they through actual access to the relic which was used for prayer by them BECAUSE IT WAS UNTIL THE CHANGE BY BENEDICT THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINOPLE. It logically follows that they have a right to the things that by tradition is part of their church. THIS DOES NOT MEAN NOR HAVE I SAID THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE OWNER WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF ROME.
A CHILD WHO HAS RIGHTS GIVEN TO HIM AND DRIVES A FAMILY CAR EVERY DAY FOR 2 YEARS AND IS THE ONLY DRIVER WHO USES IT AND HAS THE CAR IN HIS POSSESSION. IF THE FATHER HIM A SPARE TIRE FOR THE CAR. OR IF THE FATHER GIVES HIM THE TITLE OF THE CAR MOST WOULD SAY IN COMMON USAGE THAT THE FATHER GAVE HIM SOMETHING HE ALREADY HAD. I publicly stated long before your accusation that Rome has no right to give it away.
Speaking of dense, there was no Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople in 64 primarily because Constantinople wouldn't actually exist until 330, lol. Oh, but you meant 1964 right? The Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople was only established after the last crusade and the sacking of the city in 1204. Not a huge history of it.
Usually when one decides to speak from both sides of their mouth, they at least try not to be so obvious. You said it wasn't right to give away relics for unification's sake and yet, here you are stating they really weren't being given away, then again saying they're actually united anyway in the first place. That, sir, is what I would call a jumble of contradiction. Very clumsy, comrade!
The Basilica of St. Peters never belonged in any form or fashion to Constantinople. The original Basilica was commissioned by Constantine well before the Patriarchate and the second one came long after that see had become titular in 1264. Major Basilicas weren't even a thing until 1300. It was nothing more than a symbolic association, a tribute... they don't have an intrinsic right or access to it.
But there is a good point to be made despite your obvious obfuscation. Yes, Pope Paul VI did lift the excommunication, but as might have been expected, the theological problems underpinning that excommunication were ignored. Taken along with everything else we know about Russia's involvement with the Council from the presence of the KGB ROC observers to the unholy agreement not to condemn Communism, we could safely conclude this action was part of the general autodestruction that was VII.
Then we could go on to discuss some of the notorious issues held by many of the so-called "Orthodox" and even some of the Eastern Rite Catholics (as observed personally by me a few years back at a Ukrainian Catholic church):
- Rejection of Filioque
- Rejection of Divine Simplicity
- Rejection of the Immaculate Conception
- Rejection of the inheritance of Original Sin
- Rejection of St. Aquinas and of Thomism
- Rejection of St. Augustine
- Palamite Hesychasm
- Aerial Toll-Houses
- Hell is not a separate place, but it is how the damned experience Heaven (God's Presence)
- Various elements of Eastern Gnosticism etc...
So let's just say it was for "ill."