I just can't come to agree with that.
Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.
Reunion is possible, and if it should happen then we will be one Curch, until then we are two seperate chuches and not the same one.
It's not a formal division. Look at what the OO confess in faith, there are no different than us really. They aren't schismatics either because their motive was not to seperate the Body of Christ into two parts.
Chalcedon is not infallible.
My general opinion is the EO and OO are equally Orthodox and belong to the Orthodox Church. We just differ on the usage of the Christological termnology. One side adopts the more Cyrillian Christology the other not so much.
People might argue with me on this, and that's fine, but I think both sides are discussing the same thing except the terms are different.
A lot of the discussions on the forum here are simply outdated. Agreement on faith issues was already reached in the 1990 Chambesy agreement.Good stuff.
Basically it goes like this: The OO recognize that the 4 later councils teach Orthodox theology. The EO recognize that the wording of these 4 councils is not the only way to express Orthodox theology. Just because the OO prefer the terminology of St. Cril of Alexandria (also a saint in the EO church, doesn't mean they are heretics.
While logically I think you are correct, there is a big caveat.
The relationship hasn't been healed or reconciled for a LOOOONG time for some reason. If there was a legitimate way to mend the relationships, and specific clarity to be bridged up, then it probably would have happened by now.