What's going on in Rome, and those churches submitted to her? Anyone who keeps their finger on the pulse of the RCC, or who was formerly part of her (as I was) must wonder about this. I think I may have at least part of the answers.
For the (aprox.) 1000 years that the Latin west was estranged from the Orthodox Church, all sorts of independent developments occured there. The most troubling (and perhaps explaining all of the problems it was to come into) being the teaching of the Pope as "Universal Bishop."
Vatican I ended up condifying for the Latins a process which had begun centuries earlier - the reduction of the episcopate to one true, universal Bishop with all others being his lieutenants. Aside from the question of "are Latin mysteries valid", I think it's fair to say that there has (for a long time) not truly been an episcopate in the west - if by episcopate one has the understanding of the Bishop being Christ's representative, shepherd of His flock, guardian of the traditions of the Church. Rather, this has been reduced to the Papacy itself, with the episcopal college of the RCC acting more like presbyters of this "one true universal bishop".
This situation "worked" (sort of) for some time, though it's implentation was not universal or immediate throughout the west. The so called "heresy" of Gallicanism comes to mind (the belief held well after the "great schism" by French Latins, that Oecumenical Councils were superior to Popes, and that the Council was the highest expression of the Church's mind.) I honestly believe that the influence of Gallicanism survived well into the 20th century (and perhaps explains why the RC "traditionalist movement"'s main champion, and spiritual centre, remains French - that champion being the late Marcel Lefebvre, and his priestly formation which in large part occured under French theologians) and only now has been quelled.
Then, along came Vatican II. This schitzophrenic Latin council on one hand, actually strengthened and further exalted the Papacy (going beyond Vatican I's simple teaching of the Pope being infallible when making "ex cathedra" definitions, to the point of making even the "authentic" magisterium of the Pope unquestionable - which explains once again why RC traditionalists and the RC mainstream are butting heads); but on the other hand, it also established the authority of the episcopate, underlining it in a way that had long been ignored. This was probably due to the influence of many liberal council fathers, who were seeking what they saw as a more "patristic" or ancient form of church governance - of course, so radical were there views, that the text they voted on and approved had to have explanatory notes, basically nullifying or modifying parts of the texts, added afterwards by Pope Paul VI.
Suddenly, the Bishops are being encouraged to be more independent. National episcopal conferences were now formed everywhere, or those that may have existed beforehand were being granted way more power over themselves. Many (such as that of the United States) even carry themselves like they're autonomous churches.
My honest feeling is that since the Latin tradition long made diocesan bishops impotent, these newly "liberated" bishops simply didn't know what to do with themselves. Even the ones with good will were clueless - it's like a soldier who simply does not know how to function on the battle field once their commander has been killed. This, combined with the rampant clericalism of the RCC (which basically long told laymen that they, more or less, had no role to play in the preservation of the faith, encouraging a "pay, pray, and otherwise shut up" mentality amongst them), left it open to every fad, cacadoxy, or libertine whim.
While it was once papism and some particular errors (and arguably a whole way of thinking about Christianity) which definitively set the Latins apart from the Church, I think things now are worse than ever (in terms of there being grounds for re-union.) We can add to the above problems which are perhaps just as bad - the wholesale abandonment of what was left of the legitimate Latin tradition via "liturgical reform", and a spirit of novelty and experimentation that has no time for tradition.
Sadly, the seeds of this were planted by men who would most certainly be horrified at what the RCC has become - such as Pope Pius IX (godfather of "papal infallibility" and the canonization of Rome's more grandiose claims for herself), who when confronted by appeals from Bishops (who said that where he wanted to go was "contrary to tradition") angrily replied "I am tradition!"
Indeed, papism has done the very thing that I think many Orthodox have continuously accused it of - not preserve the truth, but immortalize error. Now, even if the Pope wanted to renounce past errors, he's so painted into a corner (by his predecessors) I don't think this will be possible. It certainly will not be possible to do this without losing face.
Seraphim
