But is not this backwards. There has never been a requirement for complete theological agreement in the Church, otherwise there would be no communion between the Greeks and the Russians. Communion in the Church should be the assumption, only to be broken by heresy or schism. Since, from an Orthodox point of view, an ecumenical council has never explicitly taught on the subject then there can be no just cause to break communion. Until an ecumenical council recognized by the Orthodox rules on the matter, the Orthodox position can be no more than theological opinion.
As for an act of schism, this can only come from the Orthodox side since the Eastern patriarchs claim no jurisdiction over the West. If the Pope were to take the position that a true and complete understanding of the Petrine office is still an open question and that the Orthodox position does not rise to the level of schism, then what is the justification for denying communion between the local churches?
Your comment about us simply commemorating the Pope in our liturgies is born of a misunderstanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
I was referring to the practice of including the name of the pope in the diptychs, the removal of which by the Patriarch of Constantinople signaled the start of the schism. I was under the impression that his name would have been included throughout the East but from you comments I take it that it was only included in those of the patriarchs.
"There has never been a requirement for complete theological agreement in the Church, otherwise there would be no communion between the Greeks and the Russians."
On dogmatic matters there is complete theological agreement between, for example, Moscow and Constantinople.
"If the Pope were to take the position that a true and complete understanding of the Petrine office is still an open question and that the Orthodox position does not rise to the level of schism, then what is the justification for denying communion between the local churches?"
If a pope were to take such a position, that might allow for a reestablishment of communion to the extent necessary for a council to resolve the other dogmatic issues which separate us. Such a communion would at the parish level have to be a communion marked by economia until we could work out those differences. I doubt any pope is ready to do that.
"I was referring to the practice of including the name of the pope in the diptychs, the removal of which by the Patriarch of Constantinople signaled the start of the schism. I was under the impression that his name would have been included throughout the East but from you comments I take it that it was only included in those of the patriarchs."
Certainly the name of the Pope would be included in the diptychs. Commemoration of the pope at the local Divine Liturgy would imply a universal immediate jurisdiction which would be foreign to Orthodoxy. As I said earlier, communion is a matter between and among hierarchs.