I'm a bit confused when I compare your post 162 with 163. 162 would seem to require that the Orthodox are at a minimum schismatics, since, as I am sure you would agree, we do not accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibilty nor do we subscribe to the notion that anything other than an Ecumenical Council can infallibly state anything for the whole Church, and even then only if the "whole Church" accepts it. The last Ecumenical Council, the 7th, was in 787. Some people in the West argue there was an 8th, in 869-870, but we call that the 4th Council of Constantinople. The other councils you mention , so far as I know (save perhaps the 1442 Council of Florence which I have heard the Roman Church calls ecumenical; we do not for reasons I've already stated)are not considered ecumenical even by Rome. Now I can accept that a local Western Council can establish discipline for those under the Patriarch of the West, but, absent an acceptance of the dogma of Papal, that is to say, estra-ecumenical council, infallibilty, I don't see how even a conservative Roman Catholic can argue that local Western councils can pronounce anything for the whole Church any more than I would argue that some late middle ages council in the Ottoman Empire could have effectively pronounced dogma for the Christian West.
Thus, post 1054 Papal Bulls and Roman Councils can, at least from the Orthodox pov, have no authoritative force in the Eastern Church because a) they were not proclaimed by an ecumenical council and accepted by the whole Church and b) the East does not and never has to my knowledge accepted any doctrine of Papal Infallibilty. Now, assuming that the foregoing is a correct statement of the "post schism" state of the Church, then for Hermann's post 163 in response to mine to be correct, as you have stated, the Roman Church must still hold to the doctrine of the One Church (pre-1054) on the Infallibilty of Ecumenical Councils when establishing dogma for the whole Church. I say this because we Orthodox believe a & b above. The logical result of this is that Councils, bulls, etc, occuring after the 7th Ecumenical Council must then, per force, be local and disciplinary in nature and not dogmatic for the whole Church (or perhaps "dogmatic" for only a part of the Church, but that seems to fly in the face of what the Fathers taught). If what I have laid out is not the Roman position, then how can it be that the Roman Church and the Eastern Church are not in schism, as Hermann said and I think attempted to demonstrate. On a more mundane level, if we are not in communion with each other, as surely we are not, what is the difference between non-communion and schism? And if we are in schism, am I not damned according to what you have posted?
Your posts confuse me and I await enlightenment!
If, as you say, the Orthodox deny personal submission to the vicar of Christ, then, I do not understand how the Orthodox or the RCC can hope for a fruitfull reconciliation.
If the Orthodox is waiting for Rome to officially change its mind on certain issues (Papal infallibility or personal submission for example), it ain't gonna happen. It simply can never happen because once the church establishes itself with a position deemed as being infallible - and it already has - there is no pope or magisterium that can ever truthfully abrogate it. Whats more, if it ever does happen, (to date it never has) then the whole dogma of infallibility goes down the drain and the Church can be said to have been built on sand instead of St. Peter the Rock.
In regards to the possibility of the RCC changing, Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.