It's not a question of God not acting outside the Church, clearly he does, or none would be moved to repent and join her. The grace of the Holy Spirit permeates all creation: But it only indwells the baptized as St. Diadokos of Photiki teaches.
Be that as it may, my agony is that I see in History and in the Letters of some Saints, things such as St. Leo being led around by Theodoret. In fact, his Christology is identical to Theodoret. Read Theodorets Censure of St. Cyrils 12 chapters, and then Read St. Leos letter to the Monks of Palestine, who rejected the Tome, where he supposedly clarifies his position, and all he does is restate what the Tome says. There is a lot of Ambiguous language.
For Example, relating to the Comparison of St. Leo and Theodoret:
Against St. Cyrils 5th Anathema, Theodoret the crypto-Nestorian Writes:
Against V.— We assert that God the Word shared like ourselves in flesh and blood, and in immortal soul, on account of the union relating to them; but that God the Word was made flesh by any change we not only refuse to say, but accuse of impiety those who do, and it may be seen that this is contrary to the very terms laid down. For if the Word was changed into flesh He did not share with us in flesh and blood: but if He shared in flesh and blood He shared as being another besides them: and if the flesh is anything other besides Him, then He was not changed into flesh. While therefore we use the term sharing we worship both Him that took and that which was taken as one Son. But we reckon the distinction of the natures. We do not object to the term man bearing God, as employed by many of the holy Fathers, one of whom is the great Basil, who uses this term in his argument to Amphilochius about the Holy Ghost, and in his interpretation of the fifty-ninth psalm. But we call Him man bearing God, not because He received some particular divine grace, but as possessing all the Godhead of the Son united. For thus says the blessed Paul in his interpretation, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
So many words that say nothing. Nestorius could have said all of the above. Notice How God the word Shares flesh and blood, not that he has taken them to himself and made them his very own by nature, so that in the incarnation of the Logos we say that the humanity assumed is natural to the Logos as is the divinity proper to him being Logos. So a union of two natures in a single Hypostasis that truly owns both natures as his own. But the one Subject is the Logos. The natures continue whole and undivided, distinguished only abstractly and in theory.
Now, an Extract from Leos Letter to the Monks of Palestine:
"Although therefore in our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and man, the person of the Word and of the flesh is one, and both beings have their actions in common : yet we must understand the character of the acts themselves, and by the contemplation of sincere faith distinguish those to which the humility of His weakness is brought from those to which His sublime power is inclined: what it is that the flesh without the Word or the Word without the flesh does not do."
"Although therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the true Godhead and true Manhood in Him forms absolutely one and the same person, and the entirety of this union cannot be separated by any division, yet the exaltation wherewith “God exalted Him,” and “gave Him a name which excels every name,” we understand to belong to that form which needed to be enriched by this increase of glory."
So it is not the Logos made flesh that is exalted, but the flesh as a separate form. Once again, this goes against the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril, especially anathema IV.
"If any one divides between two persons or hypostases the expressions used in the writings of evangelists and apostles, whether spoken by the saints of Christ or by Him about Himself, and applies the one as to a man considered properly apart from the Word of God, and the others as appropriate to the divine and the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema."
Again, Theodoret writing against anathema IV says: " Not then to God the Word does the ignorance belong, but to the form of the servant who at that time knew as much as the indwelling Godhead revealed. The same position may be maintained about other similar cases. How for instance could it be reasonable for God the Word to say to the Father, “Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as You will”? The absurdities which necessarily thence follow are not a few. First it follows that the Father and the Son are not of the same mind, and that the Father wishes one thing and the Son another, for He said, “Nevertheless not as I will but as You will.”
Was St. Leo a puppet or in collusion with Theodoret? I do not know. Clearly Leo anathematized Nestorius, but he seems to have no knowledge of St. Cyrils Mia Physis.
I do know that he wrote to Theodoret after Chalcedon describing it as their common victory against Dioscorus:
"While he [Dioscorus] tried to drive you out of your churches, he has cut off himself from fellowship with Christians. While he drags and drives many into agreement with error, he has stabbed his own soul with many a wound, a solitary convicted offender beyond all, and through all and for all, for he was the cause of all men's being accused."
But this is not true. Leo himself had written to Marcian that same year, 451, after having already complained about Dioscorus,
" It is not our duty to doubt Eutyches, whether he has erred because of his evil principles or not; we should not suspect the judgment of Dioscorus against Flavianus of blessed memory whether it was deceitful or not; but a number of bishops have repented and have made known to us the evil that has happened. They have asked to be forgiven for all their short-comings. Therefore, we should not investigate their faith, we should accept and forgive them.”
So the question is if St. Leo says it is not our duty to do these things...
Why does Chalcedon exist? I am not attempting to repudiate it, but be critical of it, as was Fr. Romanides.