No question about that. However, we still have a sororal relationship between the two Churches today; we should foster the spirit of love today. On that score, the Orthodox often disappoint. It is one thing to point out the admitted flaws in the Latin Church's fabric, -- all this "netrotizing tissue". Quite another to raise a seemingly endless series of objections, that betray a desire to stay separate regardless of what the Latin Church does.
For example, hypothetically, let us say the Latin Church proclaims everything that went on in the West after AD 1054 as a local Western theologoumenon, which is not dogmatically binding in the East, at least not unless a future ecumenical counsil in which the Orthodox participate ratifies some of it. Surely, when someone knowledgeable in the ecumenical affairs says "we are ready in two months", he must have some such radical initiative in mind.
Now, if (1) that initiative from the West comes through, and (2) the "nectrotizing tissue" is marginalized, what do you think the reaction in the East will be?
***For example, hypothetically, let us say the Latin Church proclaims everything that went on in the West after AD 1054 as a local Western theologoumenon, which is not dogmatically binding in the East, at least not unless a future ecumenical counsil in which the Orthodox participate ratifies some of it. Surely, when someone knowledgeable in the ecumenical affairs says “we are ready in two months”, he must have some such radical initiative in mind.
Now, if (1) that initiative from the West comes through, and (2) the “nectrotizing tissue” is marginalized, what do you think the reaction in the East will be?***
Suspicious. They fear being overwhelmed by a landslide of apostate Catholic nuns, brothers, politicians and bishops. And I for one share that fear.
I am pinging Kolo on this as I think this is indeed an interesting hypothetical question. I would have to correct your statement by saying not after 1054, but immediately following the Seventh Ecumenical Council (8th century AD), the last Council of the Undivided Church.
In short, one thousand years of Schism would be erased. The Pope would be the Patriarch of the West, first in honor and privilege among patriarch, but without universal jurisdiction. All Catholic dogma considered innovations by the East and rejected as such would be removed as an obstacle, including the Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and the proclamation of the Vatican I regarding papal infallibility.
The Creed would be recited without the filioque* and we would, after a millennium, once again proclaim the same faith as if the Schism never happened, just as it was recited at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea). Intercommunion would be immediately realized. The Church would continue where it left off after the Seventh Council.
*[I must add here that the Council did not recite the Nicene Creed, but a little known and never mentioned different version of the Creed which does not say the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father,..." but instead: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son and Word, through whom all things were made, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, consubstantial and coeternal with the same Father and with his Son who has had no beginning. The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity..."
Perhaps this could become the new Creed, mutually acceptable and without controverisal statements, the authoirty being that of an Ecumenical Council that changed it legally.]
However, the conciliatory move could not be just a one-sided Latin reclassification of western dogmatic teachings. The Eastern side would also have to be ready redefine its Palamite theology as a theologoumenon.
The official name of the eastern Church, being Orthodox Catholic Church, would have to be dropped and replaced with simple Catholic Church, as the distinction of orthodoxy would no longer apply only to the East, as understood by the East since the western Schism; the whole Church would proclaim the same catholic and orthodox faith once again, and we would once again all be Catholics.
As for Mark's fear of being overrun by pantsuit nuns, I disagree. Since universal jurisdiction would no longer apply, the various clergy and nuns of this kind would be under the jurisdiction of local Patriarchs and Metorpolitans where they serve and would be subject to the discipline and tradition of those Patriarchates and Metropolias which may turn out to be a rude awakening for some. Eastern priests deny communion where they see fit and Orthodox nun wear habits, not pantsuits; the monastic are in monasteries; that's the idea behind taking monastic vows. Monastics are not social workers.
How "hypothetical" is your hypothetical question, Alex?