NYer gives a good summary of most of the most salient differences, though we Orthodox would regard his first and third points as part of the same issue — both represent a difference in ecclesiology.
There is, however, another one, which matters very much to our monastics, who will be the toughest crowd to convince should reunion become immanent: we Orthodox are dubious that you Latins hold a correct understanding of grace. Yes, I know, your latest Catechism shaded toward the Palamite view more than prior documents, but the Thomist notion of “created grace” has hardly been repudiated in favor of the Palamite view of the grace as the Uncreated Divine Energies, and the discussion of grace in the Acta of Trent sounds too much like the Thomist/Barlamite view to Orthodox hearers. (And if the promulgation of a new Catechism somehow overrules the acta of a council you profess to be Ecumenical, as some Latin posters here at FR tried to argue with regard to this point back when East-West religious discussions were much less cordial, prior to the election of Benedict XVI, I think another sticking point would arise on the ecclesiology front.)
From our point of view, you Latins’ more rigorist approach to marriage (the forbidding of the ordination of married men to major orders in the Latin Rite, and the lack of ecclesiastical divorce) is not likely to be a sticking point, unless you would propose to change our canon law on these points to fit yours, particularly when the pastoral use of annulments has become functionally indistinguishable from our ecclesiastical divorce — a point I realize offends your hard-liners and idealists, but a fact nonetheless. (Incidentally, we too have annulments, but they are exceedingly rare.)
Grace? You immediately lost me when you matched Thomist vs Palamite. It would be helpful if you could spell out each one, with clear examples.
From our point of view, you Latins’ more rigorist approach to marriage (the forbidding of the ordination of married men to major orders in the Latin Rite, and the lack of ecclesiastical divorce) is not likely to be a sticking point, unless you would propose to change our canon law on these points to fit yours, particularly when the pastoral use of annulments has become functionally indistinguishable from our ecclesiastical divorce — a point I realize offends your hard-liners and idealists, but a fact nonetheless. (Incidentally, we too have annulments, but they are exceedingly rare.)
The greater problem would definitely be the Orthodox view that one can divorce up to 3 times.
There is yet another issue, not raised, but definitely a sticking point from the Catholic position (and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using the term Latin, generically). That would be CONTRACEPTION. From what I have read, the Orthodox position has evolved over the past decade and now resides with the couple's spiritual director, i.e. pastor. This is not to suggest that catholics do not use artificial contraceptives but not in cooperation with official church teaching. Perhaps there are even certain priests who give a wink and not approval while carefully selecting their words. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church steadfastly maintains a ban on the use of all artificial contraceptives.
Your comments are, as always, appreciated.