Taken right out a College Textbook on Theology, I think you are incorrect, you may believe in the Holy Trinity, but not the Pope, the derivitive of the Holy Spirit, The Body of Christ and Consecration, and on and on. I can never see the Church uniting with the Orthodox, I think we have more in common with the Protestants in some ways.
Somebody will object, that there are really theological and dogmatic differences between the eastern church and Rome. That is true, but these differences didn’t cause the split. They were cited after the fact to explain the completed division. Above all it was the church of the East, which searched for heresies, with which it could reproach Rome in the proud confidence of theological superiority and of the possession of the old orthodoxy which had been determined at the ecumenical synods. The theologians of the East looked down at those of the West. Where else than in the East were there ecumenical synods? Where else than in the East authentic theology, compared to which the Latins, even an Ambrosius or an Augustine, were upstarts? Whoever was separated from the eastern church, for whatever reason, must be a heretic. Already in the schism of Photios in the 9th century, which prepared the way for the big schism of 1054, it became clear that the reproach of heresy was secondary. Among the heresies which the great scholar Photios found - he probably would have tolerated it, if his non-canonical vote had been recognized by Rome - , the most significant, the only one which concerned the topic of doctrine, was the “Filioque”, the occidental addition to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but rather also from the Son. Perhaps the sentence by John of Damascus in the exposition of the orthodox faith in the 8th century refers already to a border against the “Filioque”, accepted in Toledo in 589: “the Holy Spirit … is from the Father, and we call Him the Spirit of the Father. On the other hand, we do not claim that He is from the Son, however, we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” (“De Fide Orthod.” I, 8; “Library of the Church Fathers”, vol. 44, pg. 27)
Although the “Filioque” was expressly taught even by theologians of the East (Ephraim the Syrian, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius), it made itself felt theologically only by Augustine’s influence and became, corresponding to the Augustinian conception of the Trinity, a characteristic doctrine of the western church. If you compare both types of Trinitarian doctrine, then you must say, that the Greek church here represents an older type which is still strongly determine by the theology of Origen with its subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Theologically, biblically, seen, the occidental teaching is more correct, even if one must concede to the Orient - even the popes did - , that the introduction of the “Filioque” into the creed, the only one which the East and the West have in common, without asking the East was not well done. The reproach of heresy has never been raised by Rome against the orthodox church, but rather the other way 'round. It was Photios, the universal scholar, who with his authority justified this charge, and stamped it so deeply into the church of the East that every oriental Christian, even if he doesn’t even know the main teachings of his church, knows that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the Christians of the West are heretics because they do not believe this. But the dogmatic reproach was only a disguise for ecclesio-political claims. Opposing Nicholas I was a patriarch, who quite seriously thought about “directly laying claim to the ‘primacy’ for Constantinople” (Kattenbusch, P.R.E. vol. 15, pg. 381). The role which the Filioque played in the schism of Photios was played by the question of the Azyma in the schism of 1054. Along with other heresies, like, e.g., the western practice of fasting on Friday and Saturday which Photios had already criticized, the worst one, for Michael Caerularius and the eastern church, was the use of “unleavened bread” for the Eucharist, which had been adopted into the about 200 years previously in the occidental church. It is telling that, for the church of the East, not only a false teaching, but rather also an incorrect (according its opinion) liturgical practice can be a heresy
[quote=Tomosaki]There are so many errors in this post that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just say that the Orthodox certainly do believe in the Holy Trinity. If you attend any Divine Liturgy you will notice that the Trinity is invoked many times. As a matter of fact, much more so than in a Catholic Mass. You need to read some good books on Orthodoxy because there is no scholarship in what you write. I’d start with The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware.