Rome and Antioch

I’ve been reading a lot recently on the Christology (specifically on topics pertaining to the incarnation and the hypostatic union). I ended up reading a lot about monophysite christologies and the arguments that the oriental churches put forward for them. Interestingly enough it seems if there is anything more than a semantic difference between the oriental churches and those that accept the chalcedonian creed it is a very minute difference. The difference seemed to hardly be worth the schism in the church that followed the council of Chalcedon. But recently I stumbled across this:

http://syrianchurch.org/PZakka/joint_declaration.htm

Which I found to be very exciting. After 1531 years the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope realized the sillyness of the split. Here’s a quote:

“The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon”