Here is the full text of Mr. Bonocore’s response to the objection made to his timeline [all emphases original]:
Hi, David and Randy. The reason that my timeline makes no distinction between the Monophysites and the so-called “Miaphysites” is because modern-day “Miaphysism” is a creation of historical revisionism. No such distinction was made by the so-called Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East prior to relatively modern times. But, just to give you some very rough context:
The arch-heretic Eutyches (in about A.D. 440 or so) clearly and unquestionably taught that Jesus’ Divine nature “so absorbed” His human nature ***that His human nature "ceased to be.*" And this doctrine that Christ only possessed one (Divine) nature, which Eurtyches claimed (wrongly) was in accord with the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), was called Monophysism or, more specifically, Eutychian Monophysism. Now, the modern-day Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East (i.e., the Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) claim (today) that they do not follow this doctrine. Rather, they claim to be Miaphysites (not Monophysites), and that they hold to the authentic theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who spoke of “one Divine-human nature in Christ” --a reference to the Hypostatic Union, not to His Divine nature supposedly “completely absorbing” His human nature. And this would be fine, and it would happily eliminate the division that exists between Catholics/Eastern Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East. For, Miaphysism (unlike Monophysism) can be understood as orthodox doctrine. HOWEVER, there is a little problem with this: For, the SAME Non-Chalcedonian churches that claim not to support the error of Eutyches also accept the authority of the A.D. 449 Robber Council of Ephesus, headed by the heretical Patriarch Dioscoros of Alexandria, who they revere as a saint! ** And what cannot be questioned is that this Robber Council of Ephesus declared the doctrine of Eutyches (not modern-day Miaphysism) to be orthodox doctrine and “the Apostolic Faith,” and that “Saint” Dioscoros went to his grave as a staunch defender of Eutychian Monophsism …as did many other ancient and medieval “saints” of these Non-Chalcedonian churches (e.g. Jacob of Sarug, etc.). So, the idea that these Non-Chalcedonian Churches were “never Monophysite,” but always “merely Miaphysite,” is a historical fiction. …A fiction that even many well-meaning, ecumenically-minded Eastern Orthodox (Greeks, Russians, etc.) have ignorantly bought into. Indeed, while even we Catholics are happy that most modern Non-Chalcedonians hold to an essentially orthodox understanding of the Hypostatic Union of Christ, this doesn’t excuse the fact that their heritage is clearly not orthodox, and that they remain in open rebellion against the binding authority of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
If the modern-day Non-Chalcedonians (aka, the so-called “Oriental Orthodox”) wish to claim that they were “always” orthodox in their Christology, then they need to explain why they hold to the decisions of the 449 Robber Council of Ephesus (which directly declared Eutychian Monophysism to be “orthodox”), and why they venerate avowed Eutychians like Dioscoros of Alexandria as “saints.” This alone illustrates that their rejection of Chalcedonian theology is not merely a matter of misunderstanding or unfortunate semantics, but came into being because their forefathers directly supported the error of Eutyches! Only later, when the focus turned back to the theology of St. Cyril himself (and not Eutyches’ distortion of St. Cyril’s theology) did these Non-Chalcedonians become what today is referred to as “Miaphysites.” And, if they are truly merely “Miaphysites,” then they should have no problem accepting the orthodoxy of Chalcedon, which confesses the same truth (of the Hypostatic Union) using different theological language.
Also, Randy, it is important to realize that the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East, while they call themselves “Orthodox,” are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greeks, Russians, etc.) who are faithful to Chalcedon. So, as a Catholic, it is technically erroneous to refer to them as “Orthodox.” The Greeks, Russians, etc. (albeit schismatics from the Catholic Church) are “Orthodox” in our (Catholic) eyes, because they are faithful to the first seven Ecumenical Councils. But, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East (Syrians, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Syro-Malankars, and Malabars) are not technically “Orthodox” (no matter what they call themselves), because they are in violation of the Councils of Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553) and Constantinople III (680).
Hope that helps.