Papal supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as exemplified by the unilateral adoption of the filioque by the bishop of Rome before the 1054 schism is not Papal supremacy as defined in Councils prior to that time.
Further I do not redefine it since if I am talking about the post schism church's standing on the bishop of rome, certainly I am talking about the post schism catholic application of papal supremacy.
The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and started a heretical church, and innovated doctrine outside that doctrine accepted by the councils. That is the schism, and now amount of surprise or lack thereof changes that.
This really brings to view the whole problem of eccumentical relations; Catholics who would like the assume that the problem is social, or political, and forget the schism ever happened.
Patriarch Alexy II has repeatedly expressed that there can be no healing of the schism until 2 things are addressed; the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas. No amount of Icon returning, and freindly gestures will change that; The Orthodox church is headed by Christ non a single man, and rejects the false doctrines of the Bishop of Rome.
This can very easily be changed to read "the bishop of Constantinople was excommunicated and started a heretical Church..." Where does that leave us?
Out of curiosity, I ask you, by what authority does the bishop of Constantinople have over the See of Peter, the keeper of the keys? EVEN IF all apostles were equal, WHEN did the Constantinople decide it could excommunicate an equal ranking bishop??? I would say this is an usurped power, never given to Constantinople or any ordinary Bishop. Thus, the "excommunication" is not in force (not that it ever was, as ONLY the CURRENT bishop of Rome was "excommunicated" in 1054 - not subsequent Bishops of Rome)
You have yet to show me where the entire Catholic Church was excommunicated from Orthodoxy
Did Orthodoxy EVER declare that the now current Bishop of Rome is a heretic? Or that he is excommunicated? Was EVERY Bishop of Rome, thus, declared excommunicated by Orthodoxy? Again, where is this power given to the those bishops? It seems to me that you are claiming a "primacy of power" for Orthodox bishops. But yet, Rome has none.
the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas
Does this mean that the Orthodox Church will be leaving the United States, since it is not "Orthodox" territory? I didn't know that the world was divided into "Orthodox" and "Catholic" sections.
Regards