I think what Boagenes was referring to was the type of ecumenism that will be necessary if/when our two Churches become one again. We cannot compromise on dogmatic points, obviously, but I’m sure there must be some things we Catholics can (and should) concede to the Orthodox. Only because of the amount of time that has passed since the schism, there must be some things that aren’t dogmatic but yet are differences where we can (and should) come to agreement.
I agree with your assessment that there simply can’t be any reconciliation with any Protestant sect unless they “come to us”. Those differences simply won’t be resolved until one’s particular judgement, or the Final Judgement upon Christ’s return. We are simply, and rightly, too far removed from the notion that apostolic succession isn’t a necessary, and historic, component of Christianity. This is one of the fundamental (if not *the* fundamental) difference that separates Catholics from Protestants. A difference that plainly implies that any “reconciliation” with Protestants must actually be a “capitulation” on their part. (or ours, but that would mean no one would really be “Catholic” anymore, except ironically the Orthodox, unless they too for some equally bizarre reason decided apostolic succession was no longer crucial)
I look forward to any clarification Boagenes may wish to share.
One such thing would be to simply note that the late dogmas are a product of councils that did not include the Orthodox, and therefore are local Latin beliefs, consistent with Orthodoxy but not detailed with such precision by it. I wouldn't even call it concession.
The Orthodox, on the other hand, would be well advised to note that the body of scholastic thought produced in the West, -- I am talking of the procession of the Holy Ghost, original sin, limbo, venial/mortal sin distinctions, -- is not strictly speaking dogmatic, and can be assessed critically by the Orthodox in light of their own theological tradition.
Christians need unity, and I believe that means a single head of the Church, too, in some fashion, to speak for "Christendom". I think that it is effective to have such a figurehead (though as I said, I see a downside to it, as well). But one thing that "shames us" in front of the world, is our disunity. I'm just not sure how the Christian world would ever achieve such unity.