Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not. I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion?
Because the One Church anathematizing any change to the Creed and an ecclesiastical community predicating the Faith on submission to its self-proclaimed head indicates, black and white, that the two are not in the same Church, do not share the same faith, and hence they have no communion.
The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us.
However they want to rationalize it, they at least have officially submitted to the filioque, whether they say it or not. Offically, the Vatican believes it, whether it says it or not.
Keeping up appearances isnt' the substance of the matter.
Those who have created a schism in the various Churches and joined the Vatican and joined into the latter's heresies, and are treated accordingly. That many do not willingly/fully adopt the Vatican's teachings creates a grey area only for their own individual situations.
Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy
Vatican supremacy. Petrine primacy is something else, and Orthodox.
that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.
The Intolerable Acts, the Nullfication Crisis, the Fugitive Slave Law, the King–Byng Affair, the Austrian Dismissal of 1975 and other events have a tendency of bursing the bubble of "for the most part, self-governing." The promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Church-and in Latin!-underlines that. As does things the Vatian posts on its official web site (vaticancity.va btw)
That they have to return is from a sincere effort to Latinize them. The encouragement is disingenuous. Such tripe (wolves eat tripe, lambs do not) as this
("Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church." Roman Cholij, Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain)
on the Vatican's own official web site shows that. For those who can see.
Then there the disparity that the "sui juris" organizations in the East do have diasporas (under the watchful eye of the Latin ordinaries), but they have no missions and, gaging from what I have seen and been told by your correlgionists, they are not allowed to have them (besides picking off the corresponding Orthodox, of course).
Your supreme pontiffs (what's a bishop of Christ's Church doing holding the office of pagan high priest of the Roman state, an office founded by the Roman kings?) have some interesting ideas, which they evidently picked up when St. Constantine donated (LOL) the papal state:
From your supreme pontiffs and there party congress, er, council:
The Vatican lost no time in profitting from it. The same Pope Innocent (what a misnomer!) III called a "ecumenical" council to "legitimize" the spoils. Imposing a Latin Patriarchate on Constantinople, he finally formally accepted Constantinople as a Patriarchate and in second place, after it had moved to first place, due to Rome's apostasy. The Vatican convened its so called 12th "Ecumenical" council of Lateran IV-which it has not repudiated-which stated:
5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees
Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him [no such thing ever happened from the time of the Apostles until the Crudaders came] they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.[dream on]
Receiving the pallium from the supreme pontiff is not a Tradition received of the Apostles, but an innovation imposed (as in the case of the sees listed) by force of arms. On that basis alone, Orthodoxy demands that it be rejected.
The functioning of the Patriarchs from the time of the Apostles until the coming of the Crusaders in the East bears no ressemblance to this excerpt from your council of Lateran IV. Created to promulgate heresy, the Orthodox Faith demands that the Catholic Church not adopt it.