Course Content (Syllabus)
The ecclesiastical history is full of ambiguous definitions that have caused a lot of trouble among ambitious researchers of the dogmatic knowledge. A case of ambiguous understanding and difficult interpretation is the "Neochalcedoneanism", a term that divided the scientific theological community and has been wrongly interpreted by Western researchers of the history of dogmas. Thus, the interpretations of systematic theologians concerning the dogmatic thinking of the Orthodox East have been affected too. The course attempts to find a doctrinal thread through the doctrinal writing in ecclesiastical history, thus solving the puzzle of a term that went along with (the research for) the Cyrillian understanding of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council) and negatively characterized the Orthodox tradition, leaving unfortunately monophysite-friendly remarks about its theology.
The "Neochalcedoneanism" does not mean changing of the content of the term of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, but a new presentation of the Christology of the Fathers, which is common in historic-dogmatic level before and after the period of Chalcedon. In other words, the "Neochalcedoneanism" is the bond that links the miaphysitical with dyophysitical expression in the history of dogmas, being indeed a common meeting point and universal coexistence of both the Alexandrian and the Antiochian tradition, of the Constantinopolitan and the Roman theology.
Thus, the standards of the Church Fathers.(such as Proclus of Constantinople, Basil of Seleucia and Ephraim of Amidines) who used the neochalcedonian reasoning before and after the Fourth Ecumenical Council are presented here, while there are also corresponding references in modern theologians who interpreted the term through a proper understanding of the historic-dogmatic data (see the cases of M. Diepen and M. Alonso) and help to show that (neither) in the West was there a one-way interpretation of the definition.
Further reference is made to S. Helmer and K.H. Uthemann, that shows the oversight on the western researchers, when i.e. the former interpreted Neochalcedoneanism under the microscope of Monophysitism and the latter ranks it as the precursor of Monotheletism.
There is finally a reference to St. Maximus the Confessor, who is perhaps the most emblematic case of a Father of the Church who handled the theological issues of his time using the theological way of Neochalcedoneanism, proving that the theory, that wants him out of the mentality of neochalcedonian theology, is unfounded.