Obviously we are in schism. But all I'm saying is that no Ecumenical Council has defined any of the specific claims that the EO charge the Western Church with therfore all of the issues can be resolved if the leaders of both sides decide they wish to resolve them and reunifiy The Church. I'm not going to say how the issues must be resolved only that they can and should be resolved.
The filioque was "officially" inserted into the creed at the Second Council of Lyons (II:1): "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."
Indulgences were considered in the Council of Trent in the 25th Session: "Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them."
Papal Infallibility and Supremacy at Vatican I (4th Session): "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."
Let us also not forget the aberration that is Nostra Aetate from Vatican II: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."
However, Scripture teaches thus (Dt. 18:9): "When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." There can be nothing holy in religions that do not have God's grace.
Again Nostra Aetate teaches: "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and
collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with
prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life,
they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and
moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."
Whilst the Bible teaches (Rev. 18:4-5): "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." What does this passage teach us? To have nothing to do with evil. Non-Christian religions must, logically, be evil as they stray people away from the One, True God.
Would St. Peter kiss the Koran? This is how far the Church of Rome has strayed.
PS. ... And I call myself a Catholic!