The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are actually one Church, in schism with one another. It is not the duty of the Orthodox to "come home to Rome", nor is it the responsibility of Rome to abandon everything post-schism. Florence/Lyon/Trent/V1 were thus general Western synods. https://twitter.com/JeremyMcLellan/status/1313941540864225280

Declaring papal infallibility was a major mistake, and so was the creation of Uniate Churches, as it solidified the schism even deeper. That said, the Uniate Churches certainly deserve to exist, but they should not be seen as the way to reunion in the future. Balamand Declaration

Rome certainly enjoys a primacy, but this primacy is one of love & honor. The pope is not a super-bishop who is above his brother bishops, but rather his primacy is exercised more as a "big-brother". This primacy is not merely honorific, but it is certainly not supremacy.

Many of the issues regarding the East-West schism were cultural, social, and political, only later using theological concepts to justify the separation. The schism is dated as 1054 A.D., but the schism didn't "officially" happen then. Much of the schism preceded or followed 1054.

There are several examples of Catholic & Orthodox existing in communion following 1054. Monks from Mount Athos invited Roman Catholic religious orders to their island. There was intercommunion in the Middle East and even in Constantinople until the 1700's! Jesuits taught Copts.

Much of what we hear about the "schism" is just the crystallization of Catholic/Orthodox polemic, which is more from 18th century post-Tridentine baroque scholastic manuals than from actual Catholic teaching. Ortho polemic is largely from anti-Western and ahistorical hot takes.

In short, the Catholics and Orthodox are separated, but aside from the issue of papal infallibility (and not even primacy), the other issues are not enough to maintain the schism. Anything you hear about the "filioque", contraception, divorce/remarriage, etc. is conjecture.

I suppose that's a much longer and controversial response to
@JeremyMcLellan's tweet. But I encourage everyone to do research regarding the East-West schism outside of their little Catholic Answers/Jay Dyer bubble. It is much more complex than the apologists admit.

Suggested reading: J-M.R Tillard, OP, "Church of Churches: The Ecclesiology of Communion", "The Bishop of Rome"

Yves Congar, O.P., "I Believe in the Holy Spirit", "Tradition & Traditions", "A History of Theology", "Diversity and Communion", "After Nine Hundred Years", etc.

Nicholas Afanasiev, "The Church of the Holy Spirit" & everything else he wrote

Aleksey Khomyakov, "The Orthodox Doctrine of the Church"

Georges Florovsky, "Aspects of Church History" & "Bible, Church, Tradition"

The entire Paris School

Jean Corbon, "The Church of the Arabs"

Some contemporary authors:

@atpapanik
(ed.) "Orthodox Constructions of the West"

@GDemacopoulos
, "The Invention of Peter"

@cyril_hovorun
, "Scaffolds of the Church"

@AAJDeVille1
, "Orthodoxy & the Roman Papacy"

David Bentley Hart, "The Myth of Schism"

John Panteleimon Manoussakis, "For the Unity of All"

John Meyendorff "The Primacy of Peter"

Laurent Cleenewerck, "His Broken Body"

Everything on Church history by Jaroslav Pelikan

A. Edward Siecienski's "The Filioque" & "The Papacy & the Orthodox"

And perhaps the most influential author I've read, the late Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby, and his works "Are We All Schismatics?" & "A Voice from the Byzantine East".

But all of these authors (among many more) have been essential reading!

Also, this is merely my own opinion. I have zero (0) magisterial authority, nor do I claim otherwise. I truly believe that the East-West schism is:

1. Highly misunderstood & more complex
2. Somewhat unnecessary

And that papal primacy, but not infallibility, is the way to go.