Glory to Jesus Christ!
I am taking this forum out from it’s most common focus on liturgical practice and personal piety to ask a question about theology.
I accept that the Roman Catholic church insists that it does not change dogmatically, but that doctrine develops in some way (interpretation, I guess). But something peculiar showed up in a post on a now-closed thread, and I would like to know if this statement is in agreement with Traditional Roman Catholicism, represents a legitimate development, or is actually incorrect.
I think this type of question will work as a poll, so anyone who wants to respond without typing a dissertation can do so
Miaphysitism is what the Oriental Orthodox churches teach about the nature of Christ, westerners once called it Monophysitism, but apparently that is not correct. I cannot say whether one term or the other is more accurate.
Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have held to Diaphysitism since Chalcedon, it is a very important theological point which we have held in common. (Most people don’t even know that it is called Diaphysitism, we refer to it as the Two Natures of Christ: Fully Human and Fully Divine.)
For a further definition of Miaphysitism, please seek out other reliable sources, I cannot speak for the adherents to this Christology.
Our friend and brother from the Chaldean Catholic church states:
Well, in the Catholic Church, it was agreed upon with the Oriental Orthodox that both Miaphysite and Diophysite Christologies can co-exist in the same communion. Until your Church makes a similar declaration with them, I remain skeptical of your Church’s respect and admiration for them as it pertains to Christology. They are willing to allow Diophysite Christology in the same communion with them, but I am skeptical of your Church’s allowance of Miaphysite Christology in the same communion with them.
Is this something Traditional Roman Catholics can agree with?
Can the difference be ignored for the sake of Christian unity under the Pope?
Thanks in advance,