Neo-Chalcedonianism is a gateway habit that can lead to a soteriological universalism

When we relate the uncreated & created, Absolute & relative, Universal & particular, immanent & instantiable universals, etc, we might derive our moderate realisms from various extreme realisms, e.g. Aristotelian from divine syllogistics, to develop different SEMI-formal heuristics. We convey such heuristics of the logos of being (operativity) with analogical grammars.

When we convey a logos of hypostases (operating operators) with dialectical logic, we’re not extending our semi-formal heuristics of being or analogically deriving any new syllogistics. We’re instead making NONformal references to persons whose knowledge of self & each other is realized operatively in acts of love (operated).

Neo-Chalcedonianism invokes such Damascene distinctions not as an attempt to explain how being can be variously unitary or not or univocal or not. Rather, it’s more like a heads-up that we’re changing the subject from whatness to whoness and talking about synergistic unitive doings.

So, Neo-Chalcedonianism includes a pragmatic move (beyond mere syntactics & semantics) that will explore questions of Christological meaning, which can only be answered narratively by probing our Scriptures & liturgies, our Sacraments & spiritualities, our healings, conversions & transformations.

Neo-Chalcedonianism aspires to tell the Love Story of how we are swimming in an abyssal divine intimacy.

And that’s why any analytic theology divorced from Franciscan knowledge is theologically sterile. It’s also why Neo-Chalcedonianism is a gateway habit that can lead to a soteriological universalism.