Well to be honest, its not that simple. From 381till 1054 there was several schisms between two Capital sees
Since Christianity is not defined by it's "capital see" (at least before Rome took it upon itself to try and redefine Christianity) its pretty much a moot point. Antioch and Alexandria both communed faithful under the Pope of Rome well after 1054.
Well if people dont get that Filioque and Papal Primacy are questions of all questions...
Oh it is, but not everyone believes that. Like Mr. "Orthodoxy is too rigid" above.
You mean when Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, was writting how Latins should be rebaptised, he was in Communion with Pope?
If he refused to commune with the Pope, thats one thing. However, Antioch was still in communion with Rome officially decades after the "schism".
Antioch did not follow Constantinople to Schism
Neither did Constantinople, so again, moot point.
You quoted me when I specifically said 12th century. There was no Communion between Patriarchate of Antioch and Roman Church in 12th or 13th century, when practice of separate chrismation, communion under one form etc arose. Fact that Patriarch of Antioch is rejecting validity of Roman Catholic baptism tells us something.
To be fair, he was inconsistent. On other place he wrote Roman Catholics were to be recieved trough confession. So extreeme Akribia, and ultimate oikonomia ultimatley go down to same man.
Point abot Capital sees was, Rome and Constantinople were Capitals of Roman Empire.