So now begins the real agony.
We can say as Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians that the content of our Christology is substantially the same.
But now the evclesiological implications are manifold.
1. Was any side ever the fullness of Christ's Church after Chalcedon. If so, is it possible for Christ's Church to wrongly attribute heresy not just to individuals, but to saints?
2. If neither side was the fullness of Christ's Church, did Christ's Church cease to exist visibly?
3. Can we say that both sides were equally the Church, but that after the schism the capacity to infallibly determine doctrine independent of the other was stalled? Was either side entitled to hold an ecumenical council without the other?
4. Can we say both sides were the one Orthodox Church of Christ, that the inward unity was kept, the outward unity of administration damaged, and that christ worked in both to preserve his one truth, although the administrative structures wrongly accused the other side of holding heretical opinions?
5. If truth is really substantially identical between the two families of Orthodoxy, how do we explain mutually recognized saints who wrote against one side or the other? For example, St. Symeon the Stylite was pro-Chalcedonian, St. Shenoude was anti-Chalcedonian and both were contemporaries.
6. Many of the Eastern Orthodox have this mentality that the monastics are an infallible rule of faith for determining tradition, so they keep their eyes on Athos. Unfortunately they seem oblivious to the fact that all of Egypt kept their eyes on Scetis, Jerusalem on the Jordan Wilderness, and Antioch on the Syrian Monastics led by Barsauma, and they all rejected Chalcedon. So WHAT is the particular significance of relying on monastics for theology and Ecclesiology when from THEIR perspective it "didn't work" for massive sectors of the Church?
In short how can we have unity without compromising the visible unity of the Church and even imputing blasphemy to her (that the Church can officially and wrongly condemn saints as heretics)? Isn't the Church supposed to be protected from this kind of mistake?