Above was me. Keep forgetting the whole "not annonymous" button.
Forlorn, playing devil's advocate, why doesn't widespread uncertainty both on Vatican II's status as an infallible council and the past 6 pontificates (more the former than the latter, but really both on this forum anyway) not create similar epistemic problems for Rome that we accuse the Orthodox of? I have some thoughts myself, but I wanted to hear someone else's thoughts, and you seem at least reasonably familiar with Orthodoxy.
It does, but as it happens I'm not on an Orthodox forum trying to proselytise and telling them they can't possibly make any valid arguments against Catholicism, while absolutely ignoring every argument they do make. The Orthodox in this thread have shown themselves to be of malicious disposition by their absolute refusal to engage in any sort of debate when they were the ones who opened the debate in the first place. They're hypocrites who've just in this thread been guilty of everything they've accused the Dimonds of, and much worse. And while I know you're saying the Dimonds probably misrepresented some things in good faith, they simply are not, as they've shown by their complete ignorance of everything I've said as well as Jan Dyer blatantly lying about what the Dimonds' said. If they'd actually like to have an honest debate I'd be happy to, but as you can see through this thread they've been completely unwilling to have one. But instead they just dodge the subject and call me "hellish" and insist I must accept the error-filled, substance-less and hypocritical video in the OP without them giving any defence of it whatsoever because they assure me the author's honest and that means he must
Regardless, the Crisis while nigh on impossible to fully explain, is still a problem to a much lesser degree than Orthodoxy's complete inability to defend any of it's dogma. Due to their complete inability to decide what makes councils ecumenical or not, they cannot without arbitrariness say that they know any of their dogma or beliefs for certain. They cannot defend or explain how the Orthodox Church teaches on moral issues, and they just sidestep the issue with "you and your priest can decide"(read: do whatever your modernist, liberal morals tell you). The reason they've survived this long is because they simply sidestep all the issues their lack of leadership(and a sensible, replacement for it) has given them - like not having a single ecumenical council in the last thousand years, letting all their bishops decide on moral issues for themselves as if multiple moral truths can exist, etc. We can see how precarious this whole system is in the recent Moscow-Constantinople schism, where the largest Orthodox sub-church broke away over a disagreement regarding autocephaly, the second such schism they've had in the last 20 or so years, because they have no coherent teachings or laws on the authority of their ecumenical patriarch and the other patriarchs.
Also whatever you think about the Dimonds their new video on the Filioque utterly demolishes the Orthodox position extensively using quotes from eastern Church Fathers.