It's no secret to anyone here who knows me that I like Catholics. I think there are definitely matters of faith about which they are simply wrong and need to "get right", and there are historical issues (some are still very much alive) which make things difficult, but I like them. Though I adhere officially to the position of the Orthodox Church regarding Catholics, personally I'm agnostic regarding things like the validity of their orders, "grace", etc. But I'm fallible, so I stick with the Church.
That said, I think this quote summarizes a lot of my problem with the way Catholics "do ecumenism":
We would not simply demand that the pope voluntarily refuse to use the powers that his office enjoyed post-Schism; we would demand that the pope admit to the error of his predecessors. Do you see the difference? Your model is the pope "being nice" for the sake of enticing the Orthodox Church back into communion.
It's not just the model of the OP, it's the model of the Roman Catholic Church. The one thing that seems important, above all else, is visible communion with the Bishop of Rome. Everything else is secondary. How else do you explain how SSPX gets such grief in that Church, whereas labyrinth-walking, Gaia-worshiping "nuns" get to flaunt their idea of "social justice" with abandon for decades with hardly a slap on the wrist? For all the schism that has been fomented by the former, and all the heresy promoted by the latter, what matters at the end of the day is real, tangible communion with the Bishop of Rome (which the latter do have). Everything else can be addressed through "charitable dialogue" that may go on until the Parousia, but first you need to be "in communion" with the Bishop of Rome. When doctrine, discipline, and other important matters can all be subjugated to this one factor, it's basically about retaining and building power. I have no doubt that, were the Orthodox synods to pledge their fidelity to Rome and come "into communion", the Pope would be generous in letting them "do their own thing", because the only thing that matters is their fealty to his office. And that sort of idea about the necessity of union with the Bishop of Rome is part and parcel of the whole package of teachings on the papacy to which the Orthodox object as a matter of faith.
That's why I, for one, was not impressed with Pope Benedict's dropping of the title "Patriarch of the West". What was the point of dropping the title of Patriarch of the West? I don't think anyone denied his prerogatives as Patriarch of the West. Within Patriarchal jurisdictions, you can see all sorts of leadership styles, from closely centralized (e.g., Coptic Alexandria) to "first among equals". Let the West manage itself as it sees fit. The real problem is the claim to universal, immediate, ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church throughout the world, which makes the Pope a "super-bishop" and actual bishops something less than bishops. Pope Benedict (whom I greatly admire for his person and writings) didn't drop titles like "Vicar of Christ"; he dropped a title that was relatively harmless, a title which highlighted the boundaries of his office's historic jurisdiction. In omitting that, it only serves to highlight the other titles IMO.
If the Pope wants regional Patriarchs and patriarchal synods for the Roman Church, with him holding some sort of chairmanship and tie-breaking power, go for it. If he wants more centralization for the Roman Church, go for it (although I'm not sure if de-centralizing the RCC right now is really in their best interests practically, even if it is a move toward a more Orthodox ecclesiological model...you might just end up with something like the Anglican Communion). But as long as whatever "change" is basically a matter of the Popes retaining all the same powers claimed, but agreeing not to use them or defining their use in such a way that, practically, it's non-existent...that's just window-dressing, it's not a return to the faith of the Church. But in the Roman Catholic Church, it seems like you can define the faith rather liberally, as long as you're strictly committed to "communion" with the Bishopric of Rome under its current form. And that's a huge problem. Beliefs are not just rallying cries to unite people into solid groups (though they can function like that). Without faith, you can still create organizations and consolidate power, but it is impossible to please God.