Let me post a link to an article by an orthodox scholar, (not endorsing his views) and an EO perspective and we can go from there, it's a lot of ground to cover and I am in some college summer classes right now. Don't go back to school when you're old it's such a time waster, but work is work
https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html?fbclid=IwAR1x9erM12F_1zRN3OZkI7wCDjlX-5KmcPZfWa9kY9u4QaDLTQEiAINx5E4

This guy spends most of the introduction assuring us that it's only "extremists" and "exaggerations" on both sides that is the cause of the real division. For the boldness of your assertions, you need to be able to articulate these issues better without the aid of a meandering non-authoritative essay.

He mostly focuses on the Filioque and wouldn't you know it, he thinks it ought to be removed if there is going to be any kind of reunion:

"For really it does not matter how sophisticated we become in our grasp of theological history, or how subtle in our dogmatic negotiations with the past; it is simply a fact that so long as the clause is used in any quarter of the Roman communion, there will not be reunion with the East. It has too long served as the historical symbol par excellence of what divides us, and around the ambiguity and irregularity of its insertion in the universal symbol of Catholic faith, without the assent of the Eastern churches, cluster so many of the most divisive issues of theological history, that it will remain an insurmountable obstacle to unity for not only the foreseeable, but the imaginable, future."

So make that first item on my list, the Filioque, a major bone of contention then for all "Orthodox" as well as for Eastern Catholics such as the one you are citing. This subject requires a certain amount of precision and if you were implying that Eastern Catholic teaching is much different from the EO, your responses so far are simply not good enough to support that claim. Again, please look over that list and tell me which items are not Eastern Catholic teaching. Thank you.

And a lot of time on their hands.    

And following up forlorn's suggestion, I found a similar pattern of having my earliest posts downvoted.

The Filioque isn't included in the Eastern Catholic creed, notably. Does that mean the Church allows Eastern Catholics to not believe it?

The filioque is not used by eastern catholics, however the council of Carthage used it and even though it is not considered an Ecuмenical council the EO know there was no objection to it and the council of Florence clarified through the Son. Though foreign to eastern theology it is a perfect example of a theolegumen acceptable to the EO. They wish to agree erroneously with a 18th cent Russian cleric

The one I cite should read article I cite