This thread started off goofy, but it got me thinking "what if".
What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?
I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.
I agree. The schism was really something that was a slow drifting apart rather than a lightning quick separation. 1054 was a convenient point in history to pin the Great Schism, but there is evidence that communion even continued after 1054 all the way to the Fall of Constantinople. And by 1054 it shows that there were already a number of disagreements on a number of points and as the years go by it just grew and grew. The growing schism meant a lack of dialogue and as the theology evolved on both sides, there was no check with the other side to make sure they were still on the same page.
Another big issue is the Reformation. Although a united Church could have prevented the Reformation. I've been thinking lately if someone who can make a comparison with Martin Luther and St. Maximos, and if Martin Luther could have had reformed the Church from within (and thus be kept orthodox in teaching) if he had the same avenues at St. Maximos had. That is, St. Maximos was able to find a Patriarch that supported his position (the Pope of Rome) so he continued the fight within the Church. Martin Luther did not have anywhere else to run to after Rome told him without question to retract his thesis. I'm not knowledgable on the matter, but it did seem that Luther wasn't having a dialogue, but rather was being told. And with no other bishop to support him, what else could he do but leave the Roman Catholic Church?
Now, post reformation, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is slowly falling into Luther's reformation. I believe Trent is as guilty as Vatican II for the mess the church is in today. Of course Trent externally displayed traditional Catholic beliefs, the mentality and approach changed significantly since then as an effort to continously respond to Protestant criticism. The RCChurch seemed to think that they need to respond to and differentiate themselves from the Protestant criticism rather than staying true to their original character. That is why we have all these Marian Dogmas and Pastor Aeternus, as a response to the Protestant criticism. This is what I think.