So, God's Church has been split for 1,000 years. Really, 1,500 years with the OO. And nothing has changed.
Not much has changed because no church involved in the Chalcedonian or 1054 schisms has decided that they were in fact wrong in formulating their earlier stances and sticking to them until today. The assumption is that we are divided on key doctrinal issues, and as doctrine matters, we will not rush to communion before we have resolved these doctrinal issues. I fail to see the problem with this considered approach, though I am just as unhappy with the reality of the division.
God's Church, that the gates of Hell won't prevail against, has been split. Do your mental gymnastics, but that's it.
Not really. While there have been incredible strides made in advancing the understanding between the churches on those matters that separate us, each church has proven remarkably consistent in defending the doctrines by which the schisms were originally justified, and each one also insists that these same doctrines were not invented to justify the schism, but rather rose to that level when the other churches
decided that they could not abide by what they had previously affirmed. So in their own views, the church of Christ (the OO for the OO, the EO for the EO, the RC for the RC) has never been split. It's not really mental gymnastics to say "We are right in 2012 just as we were in 1054" or what have you. The question is, of course, how that statement is substantiated.
REAL people have been separated from this "communion" thing. And nothing has changed. Not only has is not changed, but people spend YEARS trying to figure out which is the real slim shady.
A certain kind of person may do this, but all of us no matter where we end up has been born into this world of schism, and yet have found our homes wherever they may be. There does come a point when you have to throw in your lot with someone if you are ever going to get out of this limbo, and maybe some people never reach that point, but I'll tell you: no matter what we're talking about, the obsession with making everything perfect
has led to a lot of unfinished business, so you should really consider for yourself how you reconcile your idea that these schisms are "ridiculous" with the reality that you are apparently unable to get past them and accept God's faith as you've found it, where you've found it.
TRUTH shouldn't be this hard.
And it isn't. Accepting it and making a decision and sticking with it is.
I've heard the explanations... but they don't hold any water anymore. The reality is ridiculous.
If I had decided on my ecclesiastical affiliation based on Christological debate, I might agree with you. As it is, this is the least ridiculous situation I can think of. Yes, we are not in communion with the Byzantines as of yet, but we once were, and we are actively trying to discern whether we should be again. From all the indications I have seen from the EO churches, we are not alone in this serious deliberation. This
is the discernment that is hard, but luckily it mostly doesn't concern the average believer in the churches. We instead stick to what we know is Orthodox, not
because we can necessarily say that everything else isn't (if we could, we wouldn't presumably be engaged in these talks with the other churches), but because, to paraphrase the well-known EO statement, in this way we know where the Orthodox Church is.