Legally, morally, spiritually, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were invalid. Furthermore, they applied only to specific bishops of Elder Rome and the New Rome. There was never a formal excommunication of the entire Greek or Latin Church.
Cardinal Humbert was no longer a papal legate, and therefore stripped of his privilege, when he delivered his bull on a horse at the altar in Agia Sophia, but EP Celerius was no less bullish of a man.
The mutual removal of these excommunications in 1964 , committing them to oblivion means the Church does not recollect such event took place.
This was done by both sides, so as far as the Church is concerned, the Church was never divided. The Church is in internal disagreement over theological and petrine subjects, which is no different than all the internal disagreements the Church experienced together in the first millennium. Just because a married couple is no longer living together doesn't mean the marriage is invalid, Kolo.
Besides, the Church is where the bishop is, because he is continuing the ministry of an Apostle by direct lineage to one. That's where the Church gets it authority. A dissident bishop may be excommunicated by another bishop, but all that means is that until such time they iron out the differences he will not be able to commune with the other bishop. It doesn't make his Apostolic Succession invalid.
If a bishop teaches outright heresy, after an Ecumenical Council has determined it is heresy, then that bishop is no longer in the Church he is anathematized, which is more like cursed or at least . Thus, Bishop Lefevre was excommunicated (censured), but not anathematized. He was denied communion, but no one denied his Apostolic authority.
Now, we have called each other heretics and schismatics at various times, but to the best of my knowledge no pan-Orthodox Council or a Vatican Council formally anathematized the entire Eastern Orthodox Church (I have never heard of it at least).
Regardless, the bilateral retraction of personal excommunications of 1054 committed these acts to oblivion and that essentially means the Church is in disagreement but not separated, personal opinions of some individuals notwithstanding (as we have witnessed over the years on both sides of the disagreement).
Alex's comment about being shocked is also a mutually experienced event. I think the orthodox are equally shocked to find out that our Patriarchs have earnest desire to treat the Pope of Rome with the dignity and precedence due to him, even if out theologies and his jurisdictional authority are not seaml;essly integrated.
obviously the heirarchs on both sides firmly believe that our differences can be resolved (in an ecumenical Council) and that in order for this to take place we need to agree on the Petrine role in the Church. +BXVI is willing to even retunr the role of the Pope to the 1st millennium if that will mean a jump-start.
Both sides seem convinced that re-union is possible understanding that this will not take place by fusion or morphine of one side into the other, but rather of finding a language that will show that either our disputed issues are worded in such a way that we do not understand each other or that one side's definitions are more fundamental than others, and give the former precedence 9as seems to be the direction of movement with respect to the filioque).
But then, Kolo, you know all this. :)
"re-union is possible understanding that this will not take place by fusion or morphine of one side into the other,...."
It better not involve "morphine"! :)
"But then, Kolo, you know all this. :)"
Yup!
I don't think morphine will be necessary but I see no reason to exclude copious amounts of excellent red wines...