Also not to worry, we still consider you heretics. :-)
That's as what Photius was syaing at the incomplete 8th Ecumenical Council. Because the Latin West added a word (filioque) to the Nicene Creed, which was not there when the Creed was formulated and which addition was not approved by an Ecumenical Council (or any of the popes up to and shortly after the Great Schism), the West was guilty of heresy then as it is now, and if Eastern Orthodox are schismatics who separated from the heretics, then there is no doubt who is who when it comes to catholicity of the original Church.
So, if heresy is all that is keeping us apart, then heresy is on the West and not the East. The fix is easy, easier than you think. And for a brief moment in 1995 the two Churches were closer than in over 1,000 years.
Following Vatican II, and bilateral pronouncements of good will on both sides, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome and celebrated Liturgy with Pope John Paul II in 1995.
One might ask: If the Vatican is in heresy with the filioque, how could the Ecumenical Patriarch (Batholomew I) pray and participate in the Eucharist with heretics (i.e. Roman Catholics)? We all know that it is strictly forbidden for Eastern Orthodox to pray with or paritcipate in religious services with heretics, non-Christians and pagans.
For this particular Liturgy, the Nicene Creed was recited in Greek without the filioque, simply stating that the Holy Ghost proceeds form the Father and not from the father and the Son. This may seem like a trivial change, but it is not. When the Greek bible was traslated inot the latin Vulgate, the Latin word for proceed is not equivalent in meaning to the one used in the Greek original which actually implies procession from a source and not through a source. The correct theological construct is that the Spirit proceeds (like water from a spring) from the Wisdom and is expressed through the Word although as it is expressed it also proceeds but not in the original sense. By implying that the Widsom of God proceeds (i.e. originates in the Greek meaning of the word) from the Father and the Son, it is also implied that the Son's Divine Economy is the same as that of the Father, which is not what the Church teaches. There is no doubt that the Church to this day maintains the "monarchy" of the Father in the Holy Trinity.
The Roman Catholic Church knows that this is so, but it cannot go back on its teaching. The Roman Catholic Church knows why this heresy was snuck into the Nicene Creed and allowed, under the table so to say, to perpetuate itself despite public pronouncements of the popes against it. The heresy was introduced to combat the Arian heresy among Spanish Visigoths (German tribes) converted to Christianity by "elevating" the Son to a more "godly" status. Arianism maintained that Jesus was a "lesser" god.
As Greek ceased to be used in the West as the Church language by the 4th century, and transaltions of even very prominent Western Christian theologians (i.e. Augustine) resulted in trnaslational errors that were passed down the ages to become "truth," so did the filoque heresy outlive its original reason (albeit it was wrong to combat heresy with heresy!), in time it became so ingrained in the Western practice that one of the last popes in the still united Church had to officially prohibit its use and remind that Nicene Creed may not be altered, but the practice continued among Franks and other Germanic converts regardless -- so much so that they accused the Greeks of removing the filoque from "their" Creed.
So, heresy, born to combat heresy, became "truth" and truth was turned into "heresy" by the West, and so it goes to this day, so much so that the hereticson this Forum call Greek Christians heretics for refusing to be with the Church that started the heresy.
What was great in 1995 in the Vatican was a demonstration of what it would take for us to at least become closer and to celebrate Christ together as One. That Orthodox Chrisitnaity is fully Cahtolic is obvious form the fact that, except for removing the filoque from the Creed, the successor of Peter could celebrate Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch as if the Church never parted.
How fully Catholic is Orthodoxy is best demonstrated by the fact that Byzantine Catholics (Greek-Catholics) do not have to change their Nicene Creed or anything in their worship to be considered fully in communion wiht Rome, so long as they accept the pope as their lord.
Besides the filoque, the major stumbling blocks are papacy as defined in the Vatican I and the Immaculate Conception. The issue of papcy is another lengthy one so it is bets left undistrubed here, and the issue of the Immaculate Conception is that it was unkown to Christianity until about 200years ago and run completely contrary to the pre-Augustinian Christian understanding of Man's Fall to which Rome subscribed for centuries. In fact, even Thomas Aquinas, could not reconcile the Immaculate Conception which did not become a dogma until the 18th century.