Let's just eat the elephant one bite at a time.
Well, Jack, my friend, despite the fast being concluded, elephant is not a meat on my menu. So too, neither is ecumenical dialogue. As I said, I do not intend to debate you as if this is a corporate negotiation or a plea-bargain session. It is not surprising to me that an attorney can take a 29 (should be 30) point enumeration of issues and quickly dismiss it as 'workable'. Therein lies the rub. While I do not denigrate your church, I feel no particular pull at unity for the sake of unity. Perhaps you could take the list, digest it as you will, and offer your brief to the Vatican. Your good intentions are noted here.
I see that in some posts you aver that we did not face a Reformation and that your councils after 7 were mostly in response to that later schism. Unfortunately, we Orthodox (at least some of us) see the Church of Rome as a Reformation church and as such many of our local synods after 7th are motivated in kind.
It also does not surprise me that Pope John Paul II (for whom I have stated my respect here before) wishes to start 'dialogue' at the far end when we were together. He has no choice. The problem is that path is doomed to failure. Why? In my personal
opinion the schism cracks began in the mid-5th century, deepened in the 9th, became most evident in the 11th, tempered in hardness in the 13th, and FINAL in 1870. I know this is not the Orthodox 'take', but prior to Vatican I, reunion was possible. Since, simply. No.
If ending the schism is to happen, it will only be done by rolling it back up, not by starting all over again.
I am impressed, BTW; it took me 14 months to study the orlapub site. You assimilated it in days