the Orthodox and the Catholic position is not the same

For a millennium it was held that the miaphysite position was not the same as Orthodoxy and then finally we agreed that the words were different but the core meaning was the same. Do you want me to show that? After long consideration I hold that the filioque is ultimately semantic, that in one sense the Spirit "proceeds" from the Son and in another sense he doesn't, and that this does not offend any Orthodox tradition.

I also see nothing in the Bible (or tradition) that says apostolic tradition must only flow through those titled "bishops" and not through other appointed overseers like doctors. The word "bishop" is now more refined than the Biblical word for "overseer".

There are many members in Christ's body. Members can mean both churches and individuals. Since you admit the thief, you admit God works when and where he pleases as a Reformed confession says, and it doesn't contradict One Body. Also, I find much OT example, biggest being Israel-Judah, of God using division to achieve his purposes (not to mention Jew-Gentile in Romans 11).

So you're holding out for filioque, succession, and hierarchical unity. After much past consideration of the accessible material, I concluded that these are ultimately semantic and as wasteful as arguments like infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian. The bridge-builder is capable of seeing both sides and identifying the semantic point that unifies them. The only thing holding back is the inaccessible material, namely the reservations that Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant leaders have against resolving the dilemma. You want a renunciation, but it doesn't have to take that form if there is a logical position where the development can be recast without offending your tradition, and that has been done in other cases. So I hold out for hope.

If you wish to refer me to written sources, I can continue to prosecute my hypothesis; but if you refer me to the hierarchy it will need to wait until I can make it an issue IRL.