I have never accused the Greeks adding or subtracting from the faith, rather I deny the charge that the Latins have. Nor have I said that any innovations of the Greeks need redress. My point was that if the Greeks thought that the alleged innovations or abuses of the Latins needed redress this should have been done as it was in the past, through an ecumenical council of all the Church's bishops and not by the unilateral anathema of Patriarch Michael.
We are not the only guardians of Orthodoxy. We never claimed that.
In 1054 you did. And today you disallow the possibility of the Latin bishops joining with the Greek to resolve the issue.
What precisely happened in 1054? What were the "offenses" of the Greeks to warrant Pope Leo's (IX) excommunication of the EP? Was it his wounded pride that the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the name of the Imperial (Ecumenical) Patriarch. Imperial and Ecumenical were one and the same, and in the East, Constantinople is still referred to as the Imperial City.
The manner itself of the "excommunication" was indiciative of the way the Latin side behaved. Never mind the fact that the act itself was invalid because Leo IX was dead and Cardinal Humbert's authorty as the papal legate had expired.
As to disallowing Latin bishops to join us so as to resolve the issues, we have been talking for the last 30 or so years in case you hadn't noticed, and we have not progressed at all. We are not one iota closer, all the statements of brotherly and mutual respect notwithstanding.
That's because we have rehashed this a million times from 1054 onward and have gotten nowehere. Why can't you just live with that? Why do your Popes continue to make overtures without any concrete offers? Why not just lay down an offer and see if there are any takers and be done with it?
We don't disallow the possibility but we acknowledge the reality that the Greeks could not cede on certain issues the Latins would demand and vice-versa.