Well, I was going to attempt a meaningful reply but there’s [i:37mp3hyl]WAY[/i:37mp3hyl] too much information here. All I would like to say is this: we can argue history as much as we like but it will not change the fact that no eastern See [i:37mp3hyl]ever[/i:37mp3hyl] accepted Papal jurisdiction over them – Rome may have claimed such an authority, but it was certainly ignored in the East.
This is not to say that Rome held no primacy at all, but that it was not one of direct authority and it was certainly not the case that being out of communion with Rome meant being out of the Church (again, this may have been the view of the Papacy but wasn’t that of any eastern Patriarch). Nor, however, was Papal primacy the empty title that so many RCs seem to read into the phrase ‘primacy of honour’. Many Orthodox may wish it were so, but it is not the case.
In a reunified Church (if we ever have one) the Pope will retain his primacy but will not have direct jurisdiction over the other Sees. He will have no powers to appoint or depose any bishops outside of the See of Rome, and certainly not other Patriarchs. He will have the right to call and preside over an Ecumenical Council but will be bound by all decisions of said council regardless of personal views and his agreement will not be required to make a council ecumenical. Unless the RCC can agree to such a model of Papal primacy (and the internal affairs of the See of Rome would remain just that – internal), then no reunification will ever happen.
And I can’t see that we’ll ever accept RCC doctrines developed after the Schism, so no Papal Infallibility, no Purgatory, no Immaculate Conception and no dogma of the Assumption. It’s quite possible that I’ve missed some, but those are what springs to mind.