The breaking off from the original is a concern to the Church who is the abode of all graces for the humanity on earth via her teachings espoused from Christ and His sacraments.
The main problem with this modest little pov is that the Orthodox church could use the exact same argument against Rome, and say that the breaking off from the original dates from long before the Reformation, and that it is Rome who is in schism.
In which case, 'we are right because we were here first, and because we say so' does not really equate to much of an argument. A far more valid argument would be, 'we are right because we are able to demonstrate through Grace real purity of life, and a real reflection of Christ in the world.' In some cases this is indeed true of the Roman Catholic church, for example in the area of education, where it provides schools all over the world to people who would otherwise not be able to educate their children.
However, in some cases sadly it is far from true, for example in relation to teachings about AIDS in recent years, which in my opinion has verged on evil, resulting in the sacrifice of many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of lives for the sake of dogma. There is no excuse for this whatever; it is simply wrong. Where it is far from true, is where non Romans can see that there is something lacking. Sometimes what is lacking cannot be found anywhere; no denomination is perfect. Sometimes it can be found in other denominations, and found in a context and degree that frankly puts Rome to shame.
Rome itself has had to admit this, at least in part, and move from an initially very staunch position where all other churches were necessarily anathema, to one where they have to be accepted as containing at least some truth. God does not change, but the Roman Catholic church does. It changes very slowly, admittedly, but it does happen. And it is going to have to change some more.
WE know where Christ is, we know not where He is not.
How remarkably modest of you, once again. Good luck with that.
