[quote="Nine_Two, post:10, topic:284623"]
Actually Dzheremi, I've known far more EO who have no objections to OO views, than I have those who do, and that includes on the internet where divides seem so much bigger.
Yes, me too. From where I'm sitting the problem is not the numbers on either side who would not reunite, but their relative position. As the EO monks of Mt. Athos are no lightweights, some of the things that I have read emanating from that part of the EO church leave me with less than high hopes for future dialogues with the EO. Same could be said about some of what I've heard from Copts (though not necessarily monastics).
The only issue I've ever seen brought up is the place of the fourth council - Does it need to be accepted, can the OO just agree with the principles it was trying to get across rather than the language, should it just be ignored by both sides, or should it be thrown out by the EO...
Most of the discussion I've had with our priests and laypeople concerning the Council has centered around OO objection to the Tome of Leo and the anathema against Dioscoros, whom the OO consider a saint. These are not things to be bargained on, as I'm sure you can appreciate (what EO would give them up on principle?).
The answer to that issue, if one were ever found, would answer the approach to the next three councils (OO practice already being in keeping with them, even if they don't acknowledge them).
There are a great many other things, some of which are imbued with religious significance that at least some EO I have talked to (both on and off the internet) found objectionable (e.g, our understanding and use of the Trisagion), but I think to a great degree much of this would just have to be accepted as a consequence of welcoming the OO to communion, in the same way that no OO church could or should insist that EOs give up their practices.