[Kolokotronis]

"As an historical side note it should also remembered that the east west schism did not happen in 1054 as commonly thought. That was the date where the first breach occurred. But it was a local break in communion between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople."

Actually, the cracks began even earlier, around the 9th Century.

"The final nail in the coffin so to speak was probably the sack of Constantinople by the fourth crusade. This was a major event whose importance has largely been forgotten in the west. But among many Orthodox Christians, especially in eastern Europe and the Balkans it might as well have happened yesterday afternoon."

You are absolutely right. Stories of the Sack of Constantinople and the creation of a "Latin Patriarchate" in Constantinople with the crushing of our Patriarchate into submission to the Pope of Rome by the sword, like the stories of the Fall of Constantinople in 1452 and the heroic stand of Constantine XI Paleologos on the walls of the greatest city in Christendom, of the priests conducting the Divine Liturgy in Agia Sophia and disappearing with the consecrated Bread and Wine into the walls behind the altar table as the barbarian Turks stormed into the great church were our bedtime stories as children. You bet its real for us! One of the things which makes it hard for us in dealing with Roman Catholics is that they don't know their own history, or if they do, they think because it was a long time ago it doesn't matter. It does matter to us.

"Just as the schism did not occur in one bold stroke reunification may also be more of a piecemeal affair. It might be one of the Middle Eastern Patriarchs that takes the first leap by saying something along the lines of "Acknowledging we have differences in matters of theology, and those are significant, what binds us is greater than what divides us." He could in essence say that doctrinal differences are no longer sufficient to bar restoring sacramental communion between Rome and his branch of the Orthodox faith."

In theory this might have been possible 200 years ago, but is impossible today. Communication is just too good. There will only be a reunion if all the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Patriarchates, the canonical Churches, agree to a reunion. This is not to say that there won't be de facto inter communions; that's already happening in the Middle East, mostly in Lebanon, and even here in America here and there among Melkites, Maronites and Orthodox. The doctrinal differences are in fact very basic in most instances. The ecclesiological differences are vast. In the late 80s and early 90s there were discussions about inter communion with Rome on the basis of economia, but in the end, Orthodoxy decided not to do it, though interestingly, we are doing it with the Oriental Orthodox.

"But at some time in the future I suspect one or more of the Orthodox Churches will decide that they can live with whatever understanding has been reached and go back to the way things were in the first millennium when the east and the west essentially agreed to disagree on some issues while remaining in communion."

On a number of occasions my Balkan brother Kosta50 has opined that all that is necessary for reunion is for Rome to discard the doctrinal and ecclesiastical accretions since the 7th Ecumenical Council. At that point a Great Council of the whole Church could be held to discuss those later dogmas and doctrines and determine whether or not to accept or reject them. For example, if +Augustine had been able to read Greek and had read the works of the Greek Fathers, would he have come up with the doctrine of Original Sin, something different from what the Greek Fathers had taught? If his works had been translated into Greek early enough, would the Eastern Churches have raised a cry over them and reversed them? Now that both Churches have ready access to Blessed Augustine's works, would a Council anathemize them, accept them or nuance them in some fashion. Given the fundamental nature of his doctrines, the theology of the East or the West could change dramatically. In the absence of aggressive Arianism, is the filioque necessary? Isn't it heresy, or at least liable to lead to heresy? What would a council do with the Dictatus Papae? Can anyone honestly believe that orthodoxy would ever, under any circumstances, accept such a thing? Of course not, yet what happens to Roman ecclesiology without it? In any event, I doubt Rome would ever accept such a thing, if only because the Roman theology of Papal Infallibility would prevent such a thing in many areas of theology. In any event, in the world of the 10th century it was easy, given the state of communications then, to "look the other way". That can't happen now. At one point in your post you mentioned that there are things going on in the West which the Orthodox might call heresy. There's no "might" about it. An Anglican "unity in diversity" might be acceptable in the West, it would never fly in the East. We simply would not accept apostasy in any part of the Church. We've been through that before. Either we all believe the exact same things, or we don't. If we don't, or if we simply say well, we agree on most if not all of the important things, there will be no reunion. The Orthodox laity would never accept such a thing, even if the hierarchs did and our hierarchs know that without the Axios of the laity, they can't do much of anything for long, certainly not make a reunion stick.

Someday, after perhaps a century of catechesis of the Western Church on its history, on how it got where it is now theologically and ecclesiologically, the people of the Western Church might be in a position to approach Orthodoxy and Orthodox people without those lingering triumphalist sentiments which sound more of the Dictatus Papae than the writings of the Fathers or the pronouncements of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I honestly believe it will take that long and it will in the end depend more on how individual Roman Catholics and Orthodox speak with each other about the Faith than what any hierarch might say or do. +Benedict XVI understands this last point as did +JPII.

Finally, in all sincerity, I must say that the almost constant insisting that "we really believe the same things" evinced by many Romans when speaking with the Orthodox, coupled with this intense drive to convince us that reunion must happen is a bit off putting at this point. Sometimes it seems as if Rome is fixated on this idea (I know it isn't, but sometimes it seems that way)while we are really quite content with the status quo, especially now that most of us aren't hurling anathemas at each other. I've said a number of times that I never go to bed worried that my Irish Catholic relatives are going to Hell and they aren't worried about me. That in and of itself is quite a good state of affairs given our history over the past 800 odd years.

[Romulus]

I honestly believe it will take that long and it will in the end depend more on how individual Roman Catholics and Orthodox speak with each other about the Faith than what any hierarch might say or do.

I do tend to agree. We're not going back; there's no point in lingering over that daydream. So we must go on. A brotherly dialogue informed by the Holy Spirit will enable us to discern and desire a resolution to what now seems insoluble and, sad to say, not especially desireable. It is not a question of which side wins; it's a question of both sides giving themselves over to God for conversion. And no, if we don't wish to be converted, any imposed top-down fix will be every bit as phony and doomed as the self-congratulating publican who left the temple, his ears ringing with his own false pieties.

I've said a number of times that I never go to bed worried that my Irish Catholic relatives are going to Hell and they aren't worried about me.

But as you say, we don't believe the same thing. In the Body of Christ, this is an intolerable state of affairs, that what may start as different modes of belief puts us at very real risk of beliving things that are irreconcilable. It's not for the sake of pride and power then, but our own grave duty to the integrity of Christ's Body, that mere complacency is unacceptable.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

For example, if +Augustine had been able to read Greek and had read the works of the Greek Fathers, would he have come up with the doctrine of Original Sin, something different from what the Greek Fathers had taught?

St. Augustine cited a number of Greek Fathers when discussing that very topic.

But the Catholic arguement is simplest when reduced to its basic terms. In the creed, we "confess one Baptism for the remission of sins". We Christians have always baptized infants. Ergo, we are baptizing them for the remission of sins, when they have as of yet comitted none of their own, with a rite which includes exorcisms that obviously presume the unchristened child is under the power of the devil.

But really, you seem to think as though St. Augustine were acting in a vacuum. All the while that St. Augustine was refuting the heretics, he was receiving copious support from other Churches, and especially from Rome, where Popes such as Zozimus and Boniface acted upon St. Augustine's condemnations and expelled heretics like Julian of Eclanum from the Church. If St. Augustine were saying thing that the rest of western Christendom did not believe, then he certainly had the whole lot of them quite fooled, given his near unanimous support in Africa, Italy, and elsewhere, and the quick acclimation of the genius of his works after his death.

What would a council do with the Dictatus Papae?

Why must it do anything? This is not a dogmatic document.

while we are really quite content with the status quo

How can one be content with violating the will of the Lord that "all may be one"?

I'm not content at all about the situation of division.

[Cronos]

I never go to bed worried that my Irish Catholic relatives are going to Hell and they aren't worried about me. That in and of itself is quite a good state of affairs given our history over the past 800 odd years.

Amen to that.