Todd,I would agree with you, but the Maronite position appears to be perfectly coordinate with the dogmatic decree (horos) of Chalcedon, while the position of Rony's own Church coordinates with that of the position taken by Nestorius.
I am not intending to answer for ozgeorge here, I just want to add a few comments.
The Maronites accepted Chalcedon from the beginning, because they were in the Roman Empire.
As for us, who were not in the Rome Empire, we fell out of communion with the rest of the Western Churches (Western meaning West of the Euphrates river) at the Synod of Mar Dadisho in 424 for political, not Christological reasons. Later, we were accused of Nestorianism. when we re-established full communion, we were required to revise certain things that seemed to be "Nestorian". The 1994 Declaration with the Assyrian Church effectively put an end to the accusation that the Assyrian Church was "Nestorian", therefore we Chaldeans are no longer forbidden to reclaim our traditional Christological position.
A small example:
In our liturgy, the traditional way was to speak of the Mother of Christ. When we re-established full communion, we were required to change it to Mother of God (because we were thought to be "Nestorian"). Now, when our liturgy was recently revised, we have both Mother of God and next to it in a paranthesis, Mother of Christ, to show that both titles are ok.
The Greek language does not have a theological primacy in our Church of the East. We accept Holy Tradition which we received in Aramaic, as the Pentecost passage in Acts 2 says when the residents of Mesopotamia received in their own language the Gospel, and subsequently when we were evangelized by the Apostolic mission. We represent a continuity with the early Semitic Christianity which was a non-hellenized Aramaic Christianity, as this form of Christianity spread to the Aramaic East into Iraq and further East.Now whether Rony (or the Latin Church for that matter) likes it or not, the Greek language has a theological primacy in Christian theology, because it is the language of the inspired New Testament, and as a consequence it has a normative value. Interestingly, the theology professors I had at the Latin Catholic university that Rony is presently attending insisted upon this fact.
We also accept Holy Scripture, but we have no original copies of the New Testament, and so it not 100% certain among scholars that the NT were originally written in Greek (Greek Primacy), as there is a minority among scholars that accepts Aramaic Primacy. Personally, I accept that most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but I do hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic as there is Patristic mentioning of this. Some Assyrians and Chaldeans hold to Aramaic Primacy. In any case, we use the Pshytta version of the Bible, an Aramaic Bible, in our theology and liturgy. Therefore, the Aramaic NT that we have has normative value for our Church of the East.
Of course, the Latin professors would insist on Greek Primacy, as this the majority view.
This is a squabble between you and the Latins, and has nothing to do with us Assyro-Chaldeans.As I see it, it is the primacy of Greek language that ultimately makes the Latin Church's attempts to justify the use of the filioque in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed problematic, because the fact that in the past the Latin Church has mistranslated the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with the single Latin word processio is not a sufficient justification for causing confusion in connection with the Spirit's existential procession of origin (i.e., ekporeusis), which is from the Father alone, with His eternal energetic manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai), which is from the Father through the Son.
I've explained this above. Maronites are of the Antiochene tradition, distinct from us. We are not Antiochenes, and never were, as our Apostolic Succession and See is different from that of the Apostolic Succession and See of the Antiochenes. They define Qnoma differently than we do.Moreover, based upon Rony's own comments in connection with qnoma it appears that the term is related to the word hypostasis, since both terms seem to concern something that is essentially existent, and the Maronite Catholics appear to use the term in this precise fashion in their theology.
That is good Greek theology, and as I keep saying, I am not opposed to Greek theology, we merely just don't theologize in Greek.Finally, the Cappadocian Fathers chose the term hypostasis precisely for that reason (i.e., because it conveys the idea of concrete existence), and they used the word in order to complete and make concrete the term prosopon, which when taken alone was open to a Sabellian interpretation (cf. St. Basil's letters 38 and 236).
They are not of that of historic Orthodoxy, because our theology is not that of Orthodoxy, rather, it is that of the Church of the East. You are seeing relativism in what I am saying because as I mentioned earlier, you've developed a uniformest rather than a pluriformest mind, and so you are uncomfortable with a multiplicity of theologies in a Communion. I reject relativism, this is not a relativism issue, it is an issue of a multiplicity of complementary theologies that are allowed in the Catholic Church. We confess two Kyane, two Qnome, one Parsopa, and if you see this as "Nestorianism", then there is nothing I can do about it other than to tell you that it is not "Nestorianism". This is our heritage in the Church of the East, and I have no authority to change anything of it. If you want, you can try to contact our bishops and discuss it with them, I highly recommend you to talk with Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, and he will explain this Christology to you. If you want to buy his book, you can get it here: http://www.lulu.com/content/1670586That said, based upon what Rony has said so far in this thread, I remain unconvinced that his christological and triadological views coordinate with historic Orthodoxy. I also am concerned by his apparent dogmatic relativism in christology and triadology, because it involves what I can only describe as a misguided attempt to make a form of Nestorianism acceptable.