Replies

1. No, schism does not involve heresy. Heresy is treated differently.
2. you're right about the Assyrians -- I miswrote Chalcedon for Ephesus and Nicea for Chalcedon.
3. The Coptics DID break away in terms of a schism --> it was not power-politics, if you read the details of the councils the issue was over the nature of God -- which was to combat serious HERESIEs like Gnosticism or Arianism which denied the Godhood of Christi or said Jesus was a "higher" God from Yahweh who was just a yabbaloath (a demiurge). The council was rejected because of it's terms of homousis and other esoteric terms -- we orthodox thought they meant that Jesus wasn't 1005 man and 100% God, but they actually did and didn't agree with the language (why? Perhaps Greek was losing tis' linguage franca status among Armenians, Ethiopians (dunno why Copts, but hmmm...))

Cronos from #796: "3. The Coptics DID break away in terms of a schism --> it was not power-politics, if you read the details of the councils the issue was over the nature of God "

According to Coptic history, it was Copts who held fast to their original beliefs, and the Orthodox at Chalcedon who wandered off into heresy.
Of course, I have no dog in this fight, but it does seem to me Copts have a stronger case.

Again, my argument is that none of these differences in theological opinions could matter a whit in the Eyes of Christ, but Christians rejecting and persecuting other Christians over such disputes must surely force out of Him tears of blood.