Yes, historically we have accused you of having compromised with Theodoreanism (the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia) at the Council of Chalcedon, and personally I still uphold this teaching.
No, this is not the logical conclusion. True, no party would be heretical. But what really is the core condition of the schism? It is our (the OO) rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. If we had not rejected it then we still would have been one. And if both sides were in fact orthodox, primarily we would be the side in the wrong for having rejected your definition of faith. Even if both parties were orthodox all along, we would still technically be schismatics, and you the Church.
So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours. But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.
I am sure there is a more perfect logic to your argument than my position. However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.
So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said. But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.
I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.
Irony off- there comes a point where we need to take our heads out of our ---s and say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."
Josh
By the way, I wanted to add to my little rant (that I still stand behind, at least in content, lol) that, of course, we would only need to do the bolded part if indeed we come to the point where we realize that we never truly disagreed in the past but rather misunderstood each other, rightly condemning heresies that neither of us actually stood for.
However, in my mind, and more importantly in the minds of the EO and OO Churches, this is not a foregone conclusion as of yet. So, I do not want my words to be mistaken for a call to unity in haste or at all costs. I would not, for example, support unity with Catholics tomorrow, even though it would feel good, for there are still issues that are not resolved.
If tomorrow our Churches (EO and OO) decided that indeed we are one and open up to intercommunion (and therefore recognize each other as One Church), this would not be to my chagrin and I would gladly accept this without a second thought or doubt in the world. However, we have not arrived at that point and that very well may be, from a theological pov, the right course to take. As I said earlier, I don't pretend to be an expert.
Interestingly, I totally know how Mr. Dombrowski sees me and my lefty views. He sees me and some others here as one who simply wants to sweep things under the rug, hold hands and sing kumbaya. I know that can't change his mind because his posts demonstrate him as one who is solidified in his perspective no matter what.
However, to others (and Christopher if he wishes to hear) I want to reiterate that I am not interested in cheap reunification as he publically denounced his own sister in Christ of doing (in a "heterodox" forum on top of it), and quite harshly. I am not into reconciliation for the sake of good feelings. I am into reconciliation if indeed we are saying the same thing in different ways.
I'm not an expert, but that's how things seem to me so far whenever I read up on this theological issue from both points of view.
Now, with that, I will say that I have always found the unwillingness to listen to what the other side has to say about their own beliefs to be unfair and intellectually dishonest, especially when we pull the "I was once in your camp" card, which has validity, but can be overused and overappreciated quickly. Some feel it gives them the liscense to insist whatever they want about their former "camp" and convincing them that their understanding may be off is many times pointless because this can quickly turn more into an issue of them proving to themselves that the reasons they left for are still good reasons. So, in short, it's a personal issue for them, that they are dealing publically. So, I look at this thread introspectively and realize that I might unintentionally approach, say, Lutheranism in a similar way, assuming myself an expert to the point that I understand their faith (that I left) better than they do. That may be true at times depending the individual or issue. But that isn't true for a discussion with ANY individual or issue... at least for me. So, it's a wake up call for me.