Yesterday, 04:59 PM
That is not what the Roman Church or the Eastern Churches believed, neither at the time of the Great Schism or after (except perhaps for what Vatican II taught, regarding Branch theories and such which completely go against the Patristic teachings). They don't believe the Church can be divided, and rather each claim to be the true Church established by Christ. Before the Schism, this was true, but after it, one was the true Church and the other fallen away. To any serious seeker of the truth, this fork in the road is the pinnacle in determining where the Church of the New Testament is. It is one of two, either it is the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Christ's Body cannot be broken into two. It wasn't that the Church divided in unity, it was that one section fell away. Although a branch falls from the tree, it does not mean that the tree has divided. It remains one tree.
You are correct, but if you think the doctrinal developments have to do with icons or the Second Council of Nicea, you would be incorrect. The innovation which developed was actually iconoclasm, and that is what was rooted out by the One Church. As for the innovations which led to the Great Schism, it did not occur in the Orthodox Church, it occurred in the Western Church (ex: Filioque), first with Rome and then the Protestant Reformation (which is the offspring of the Papal Church which broke away).