[Cronos]

Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic

Actually we don't. Furthermore, it's pretty common knowledge that the ROOTS of the disunion were more political and linguistic than anything -- The Western half wanted to be pally with the new Frankish Emperors, while the Eastern was pretty much under the thumb of the Roman Emperors in Constantinople. Furthermore, both Rome and Constantinople wanted to be #1 -- remember that Constantinople wasn't one of the original 7 Churches. A lot of political posturing, by mortal men. Then we have the differences in language as evidenced by the filioque: the Latins probably couldn't quite figure out why the Greeks objected, not getting that the Greeks thouight the filioque conveyed dualism. They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged.

[kosta50]

They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged

Cronos, there is a little bit more to that. For one, +Augustine's "original sin" theory which was unknown and never officially accepted by the entire Church until after the Schism. That concept is directly related to our dogmatic difference in not just how but why the Blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos remained immaculate.

The filioque is more than a linguistic issue. The papal supremacy, although of itself not a theological issue, is a serious one that was brewing from the 4th century onward.

These issues are difficult but not insurmountable. The problem the Church will have to deal with is to show that neither side was wrong on any of them. Once you move beyond individual Father's opinions and adopt them as dogma, if you move beyond what the Seven Councils declared, and add almost twice as many of them to one side of the Church, insisting they are ecumenical, it becomes a lot more difficult to reconcile.