http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=194&SID=3
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Why_I_Became_An_Orthodox_Christian.htm
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zB6KRFLpgpsJ:mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/7706.html+site:mospat.ru+%22bishop+of+rome%22&hl=en&client=safari
That is the schism. It isn't about politics. It isn't about contraception or divorce. It is the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, and False doctines subsequently adopted by the Bishop of Rome.
It is a spirit of dissention to pretend the schism is about something else; it is only when the notion of the papacy and false doctrine are addressed that unity can occur. It is only going back to the Pre-1054 definition of primacy of honor, and a rejection of a handful of minor innovations.
Primacy of HONOR??? You aren't aware of Church History before the Schism, are you. While I will say that Vatican 1 was NOT what the Church practiced in 500 AD, I think a look at Pope Leo and Gregory will give you a quick view on what was practiced BEFORE the Schism. The question is not "restoring the Pope to a position of honor". It is about "What WAS primacy"? It existed. But to what effect? That is the question before us. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that there was PRIMACY - now we must define it, brother. What power did Leo and Gregory have?
Regards