"Indeed. And I'm sure the "great council" will base it on some sort of "tradition" stringing together a verse from this church father and a verse from another until everyone comes to a general understanding, making it seem as these differences are nothing."
LOL! Its called "nuancing"! On the other hand, Rome might just say, "Ok, you were right. Have it your way then!" :)
They probably will... :O)
That does raise a question in my mind. I believe in all our discussions it has been the position of Rome that Councils were only meant to affirmed what beliefs were held by the Church. Where there are two differences, one is correct and one is heretical. It is the Council job to sort those matters out and confirm what is the correct doctrine held by the Church and what isn't. Under our scenario, either Rome or the Orthodox are teaching heretic doctrine. You don't really expect Rome to admit they're teaching heresy now would you?
But you have suggested a different use of a Council; to establish new precedence by reconciling doctrinal beliefs. While it is my understanding the Orthodox use of the Council in this fashion, Councils were never used this way under the Roman Catholic Church-or so we've been told. Under this scenario, if Rome admits to using a Council in this fashion, it calls into questions ALL Councils, since the purpose of the Council (as we've been told) is underminded.
Either the purpose of the Council is to affirm what the early church fathers believed which makes the Orthodox view in the Roman Catholic Church heretical, or the Council purpose is to reconcile and establish doctrine which means they can't point back to a Council to state an affirmation of a belief. If the answer is that a Council does both, then the argument calls into question any decision by the Council.