An Explanation the Chart of the Catholic Church
1. What is Neo-Chalcedonian Christology?
Thanks for allowing me the chance to explain why I classified things the way I did. I wrote my Master's Thesis on: “The Neo-Chalcedonian Christology of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Its Importance for the Church Today.” Neo-Chalcedonian Christology is a very important Christological development which took place after the Council Chalcedon and was ultimately canonized by the Church in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Although this Christology has much in common with Oriental Orthodox Miaphysite Christology and was approved by both the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople, it became the Christological position of the Byzantine Churches and remains so today. It is described in a few chapters of Fr. John Meyedorff's "Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought." The Jesuit Aloys Grillmeier, SJ, discusses it a little in his monumental work, “Christ in Christian Tradition” (cf. Volume 2-1 & 2-2). But Patrick T.R. Gray wrote, what I believe is, the definitive work on the topic called "The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553)." While Gray's work covers the entire history of the East's response to Chalcedon, my thesis concentrates specifically on Neo-Chalcedonianism. If interested, my thesismay be available through inter-library loan from (1) Antiochian Village Heritage Library, Ligonier, PA, (2) Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI, (3) St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, New Rochelle, NY and (4) the Edward andHelen Mardigan Library at St. John Armenian Church in Southfield, MI.
In short, Neo-Chalcedonianism was the response, after Chalcedon, of the Cyrillian majority in the Church to ensure the Council of Chalcedon was interpreted in the Cyrillian sense that it was originally intended. It was also the attempt to clarify Chalcedon in ways to protect it from Nestorian misinterpretation (which was a significant problem in the Church following Chalcedon). This was accomplished in several ways including: (1) insistence on the use of the title Theotokos for St. Mary, (2) insistence on the necessity of Theopaschite formulas like "who was crucified for us" and the Hymn Monogenes, (3) the allowance of the Cyrillian formula "one incarnate nature of God the Word" under definite conditions and especially (4) the teaching of enhypostatization to explain our Lord's consubstantiality with man in a way that preserves the singleness of the subject of the incarnation. All of these hallmarks of Neo-Chalcedonian Christology have left an indelible mark on the Byzantine Church’s Faith and Liturgy.
2. What do the Categories of Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian mean?
A. The Churches of the Chalcedonian Christological Tradition:
I classified all those Churches which traditionally are Dyophysite or use the language of duality in their Christologyunder the title "Chalcedonian." This would include the Latin Church (exemplified by Pope Leo of Rome’s Tome), and those who identified with or generally accepted the great Antiochian writers like Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edesssa. This includes the Assyrian & Chaldean Churches which historically followed Nestorious and separated over the issue of his Christology. Since the term "non-Chalcedonian" is generally used for those of the Miaphysite Christological tradition, I don't think it is helpful to use it for the Assyrian Church of the East (although technically it could be argued that they are also “non-Chalcedonian”–being their split pre-dates the Council). It is commonly known that Nestorians in general (as well as Nestorius himself) considered themselves vindicated by the Council of Chalcedon. Chaldean Catholics are Chalcedonian and generally argue that Nestorius was a misunderstood Chalcedonian. The Malabar Church (Orthodox or Catholic), is a daughter Church to the Assyrian Church. Therefore what was stated about Assyrian/Chaldean Christology can be safely applied to the Malabar Church as well.
B. The Churches of the Non-Chalcedonian Christological Tradition:
Similarly, I grouped all those Churches together which descend from the Miaphysite Christological tradition. This includes all those who historically confessed "the one nature (mia physis) of God the Word incarnate" following St. Cyril of Alexandria and his great Christology. These are the Churches which traditionally emphasized the singularity of subject in Christ (e.g., Armenians, Syrians, Copts andtheir daughter Churches). I grouped the Malankar Church under the non-Chalcedonian tradition because their Orthodox counterpart is under the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Both of these Churches are traditionally Miaphysite (and of the West Syriac Rite). There is a very helpful article by Fr. Ronald Roberson on the same page as the chart: which gives further explanations of all of the Churches on the chart. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
May the Great Fast bring us great repentance.
Sub-Dn. Lazarus Der-Ghazarian
The Great Fast, 2015