We only differ on this in so far as the teachings of western synodal Councils (such as those of Carthage or Orange or Rome) were directly affirmed by the Pope for the whole Church, or where the Pope himself wrote to clarify or lay down the line on a matter, such as St. Damasus, Leo and Agatho's Tomes to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th ecumenical councils, or where a specific Father was essentially endorsed by Rome in a conflict, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria.
We don't have such a person
From my own reading of history, I would tend to listen to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems most often to be on the side of Orthodoxy, and who, the most recent incumbent aside, seems to have enormous moral prestige throughout your communion. The list is certainly illustrious enough with men such as Sophronius and Dositheos. I can't see him reconciling with Rome if the rest of Orthodoxy was not, nor the rest of Orthodoxy doing so without him.
nor do we have a resource in Orthodoxy like the Latin Church has in its Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with it.
What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?
"We only differ on this in so far as the teachings of western synodal Councils (such as those of Carthage or Orange or Rome) were directly affirmed by the Pope for the whole Church, or where the Pope himself wrote to clarify or lay down the line on a matter, such as St. Damasus, Leo and Agatho's Tomes to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th ecumenical councils, or where a specific Father was essentially endorsed by Rome in a conflict, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria."
Ah, well, there's one rub. I am not saying, by the way, that the Popes were wrong in these instances.
"From my own reading of history, I would tend to listen to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems most often to be on the side of Orthodoxy, and who, the most recent incumbent aside, seems to have enormous moral prestige throughout your communion."
Trust me on this one, HC, the last crowd Orthodoxy is going to listen to is the group in Jerusalem, in great measure because of its sorry modern history, but equally so because it has been a bot suspect for a very long time given its nature as a sort of wholly owned subsidiary of Greece to the consternation of the actual Faithful on the ground. The other four patriarchates will play the big roles, especially Constantinople and Moscow, though Antioch has certainly "showed the way" in ecumenical matters for the past 25 years or so in a quiet way.
"What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?"
Good question. If anything they will be at best a footnote, at worst a hinderance to any reunion because of what appears to be at a minimum a history of old fashioned Protestant anti-Catholicism. On the one hand they can be more Orthodox than the EP both theologically and socially (some of them, as someone on these threads once said, seem to want to pretend they are Balkan or East European peasants of the 19th century, complete with ethnic blood hatreds!) and on the other thoroughly Protestant in their phronema, Protestants swinging the theemeeato (the censor) as one priest once said. To be fair, most converts have brought a lot to the Church, but in this area the Antiochian group you refer to will have little influence.
I may be wrong, but I think Hermann is referring to the fact that the Antiochian has a tiny "Western Rite" segment, in which there are (as I understand) two main Western liturgies in use. Most are former Anglicans.
The question thus would be whether those in that rite would be able to play a role within Orthodoxy similar to the potentially positive role of Eastern Catholics in dialogue with the Orthodox.
I say potentially, since at this point, the existence of at least the largest Eastern Catholic "Uniate" groups have hindering factors that at least cancel out the helping factors. *For now.*
The positive role is that to the extent that Eastern Catholics have retained or are recovering an Orthodox phronema, this gives an internal patristic witness within Catholicism that cannot be written off, even by anti-Orthodox partisans.
So, again, would the "Western Rite Vicariate" be able to play a similar role in Orthodoxy? I would say no, for many reasons that I don't have time to go into. Fundamentally, I think that the idea of the Western Rite Vicariate is flawed, and many share that view, including, seemingly, many of its own people, who often transition on into mainstream Eastern Rite Orthodoxy. The patristic, theological, spiritual, and liturgical tradition of the pre-Schism West needs to be recovered in order to Orthodoxy to draw closer to Catholicism, but I personally think that this can only be done by Rome itself.