Jennifer, I also have and continue to struggle with this, sometimes on a daily basis.
We are all told the rote answer that Fr. Deacon Lance gave in catechism and in the seminary, but it often simply doesn't hold water with me anymore, and all the EWTN justification in the world on paper doesn't satisfy me.
It is something in your heart, often that cannot be put into adequate words. As Alex says, it is a very personal thing.
This idea of the definition that Fr. Deacon Lance gives is simply not the idea of the early Church. There was a much simpler monarchia, one of love and desire for unity and EQUALITY of the churches, and not one of montanist authority and structure. Rome was first among equals, not the montanist authority such as we see in the 19th century.
I am in communion because I want to be, and not because I have to be. Atrocities have been committed against Easterns in the name of Rome, and vice versa. All have sinned.
We both indeed need each other. Orthodoxy needs primacy, as the lack of agreement and sometimes even communion between jurisdictions has borne out. Afanasiev, Schmemann and Meyendorff anmd others have all written about this need.
The famous Russian philisopher Vladimir Soloviev concluded that there was mutually nothing between us being in union, only a mutual lack of will to forgive and understand the other, like family members who had long ago stopped speaking with each other.
But primacy is not some magical panacea. Primacy has not guaranteed liturgical consistency and orthodoxy in the west, especially in the last 30-40 years. That is a very frightening thing to the Eastern mind who takes most seriously the maxim of St. Prosper of Aquitane "lex orandi, lex credendi".
Even theological orthodoxy is not necessarily assured with primacy, as there are priests saying things from the pulpit in Roman churches that are questionable at best (I've heard some of those myself), and you will find their names in good standing in the diocesan rolls.
Primacy also needs as a full brother or sister the faithful attachment to liturgical and theological orthodoxy. One cannot debate the tenacity of Orthodoxy in keeping to the teachings of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils and very faithfully preserving liturgical tradition.
I am very much more sympathetic to the Orthodox concerns about unity as a Greek Catholic, that being my mother church from which I am somewhat estranged, than I am about trying to justify an absolute primacy given the current liturgical, spiritual and theological state one often finds the Roman Church embroiled in.
But every game needs an umpire. As Afanasiev observed, the need for a first among equals to decide the disputes of his brothers is sorely needed to keep Orthodox Christianity united. An umpire is NOT a dictator, but one who has the authority, will, and love to step in and "make the call", and then step back out and let the game continue.
With the rise of increased secularism, anti-Christian movements and religions, sometimes radical and violent, we so much do need each other as churches of Apostolic Succession.
We do not need nor will tolerate a return to an ultra-montane primacy of a Pio Nono. All things considered, I would almost surely not be in communion with Rome if this sort of "primacy" was returned.
As a Greek Catholic, I am in communion with Rome more because I want to be, and not because I feel I have to be or forced to be. That being said even when Rome has not always honored her part of the bargain from the decrees of Union.
The conciliar approach of the Latin Church since Vatican II along with her greater outreach to Eastern Christians, both in communion and not in communion with Rome, has been a personal source of great hope with me. With that impetus I pray we can move towards glorious days of more full Christian union. "So that all may be one"...
Diak, longing for Constantine, Justinian, Theodosius....
