My answer is yes, because of the common history these two churches share and the essential common understanding of their doctrine during the first millennium, but the elevated position of the bishop of Rome and the innovations that developed since the middle of the first millennium, the additional of doctrine propounded by the Church of Rome in the second millennium, and the innovative practices since the Great Schism, keep the churches separated. Many would argue that due to the similar practices of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, these two Christian Churches have the most in common, but I disagree because of the official doctrinal differences since the separation of the 4th Ecumenical Synod (Council), 451.
I'm not going to elaborate as to all the differences, but the position the Pope of Rome is held by the Western church, a position of jurisdictional authority as opposed to an honorary position, is the primary difference between the churches. In fact the Great Schism was largely due to the authority the Pope was exercising, adding terminology to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), which was propounded by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods, accepted by the greater church and ratified by subsequent synods; that the West felt the Pope had the authority to change an article of faith, demonstrates a major deviation from the ecclesiology of the Ancient Church, ecclesiology held by the Eastern Orthodox Church even today. Also, the doctrines added by the Church of Rome after the Schism, are not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Age, well, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church share the same history, except that the Roman Catholic Church went it's own way beginning in 1054 officially.