Are you saying that not ONE bishop has left the Church to become a Protestant? I find that rather difficult to believe.
Our theological disagreement is within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one that was founded by Christ in 33 AD and passed on to his Apostles and their successors. It's not some home-grown variety
Oh, here comes that old chestnut again. "Our theology don't match, but, hey, that's OK. We still have the same boss, I think." Please.
The Church was not "ruled" by the Bishop of Rome. You got that all wrong. The Church operated and (the Orthodox Church still operates the same way it did for the past 2,000 years: by councils (apostolic gatherings); it's conciliar.
That's very nice but our Catholic friends make quite a point in reminding us the Pope is the head. You first tell us that Peter was the head of the Church and now you say its a council. Make up your minds. You're confusing us slow witted Protestants.
When Luther established his 'church' there was not a single bishop with him. The bishop to whom Luther was subordinate certainly did not condone what Luther did.
Even if there was a bishop who was sympathetic to Luther's cause, he could not "hire" Luther for him. Bishops are autonomous and one bishop cannot interfere in the affairs of another bishopric.
And, taking it one step further, if such a bishop were to side with Luther, Luther would be his deputy and the bishop would be the final authority of that new 'church.'
Now, the renegade bishop would have apostolic authority by valid succession, but because of apostasy the apostolic office would die with him, so the new 'church' would still be without a valid apostolic succession.
Some Scandinavian bishops sided with Luther's movement later on, but their offices ended for the same reason.
Oh, here comes that old chestnut again. "Our theology don't match, but, hey, that's OK. We still have the same boss, I think." Please
First, what theological differences are there. One is Purgatory, one is Filioque, one is Immaculate Conception, original sin, and the extent and nature of papal primacy.
The Purgatory is a matter of semantics but it is not critical. The orthodox, contrary to what many say, believe in the intermediate state of the soul starting with the particular judgment at one's death (separation of soul and body), and the Final Judgment. The EOC has a slightly different view of what happens to those souls, but nonetheless we have commeroative services for them to "ease their discomfort."
As far as the Filioque is concerned, the Catholics believe exactly as we do but they concentrate on a different aspect of the procesison of the Spirit. Catholics could drop the Filioque in the Creed and continue to teach it because it is not theologically incorrect; just incomplete.
Immaculate Conception will be a tough nut to crack because it is tied to the other issue, the so-called 'original sin.' But, even here the Catholic side is not that far from the Orthodox teaching, because we see the OS as an effect of sin (our fallen mortal nature) and not sin itself; and the Catholics pretty much agree.
The Immaculate Conception is very important, and this will be a challenge. The fact that it is a dogma in the Catholic Church makes it immutable. So the only saving grace in the IC will be agreeing on some points. We believe that Mary was sinless and ever-virgin as the Catholics do. I don't believe it is theologically impossible to solve in an Œecumenical Council.
The issue of papal primacy/supremacy is under review. +BXVI has already returned the conciliar structure of the Church more in line with the pre-Schism paradigm. He is even willing to consider pre-Schism papacy as a staring point.
All this is not an issue of The Holy Trinity and Christiology, where the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in complete agreement. These two, along with the proclamation of the Theotokos as the Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, are essential dogmas of the catholic church and orthodox faith.
What is sought is a papal primacy that is acceptable to both without morphing and overtaking one or the other. once that is agreed, a general Council can tackle the remaining theological issues.
But what is important to understand is that our disagreements are within the Church. They can be resolved within the Church. the same is not true of other Christian groups outside the Church.
That's very nice but our Catholic friends make quite a point in reminding us the Pope is the head.
The Pope is the First Bishop in the Church, as far as honor and privilege goes. He is not the ruler of the Church any more than +Peter was the "ruler" of the Apostles. But he was senior and he was singled out. The extent and nature of that primacy is the subject of Catholic-Orthodox dialog.
You first tell us that Peter was the head of the Church and now you say its a council
+Peter was the senior Apostle, but the Apostles used a conciliar approach to the administration of the Church. The bishops do the same thing.