It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.
Welcome to the forum, Russian.
One of the nice things about OC.net is that Eastern Orthodox Christians (EO's) and Oriental Orthodox Christians (OO's) do get to dialogue here. Since you are pretty new here, you probably haven't had a chance to read through a lot of the older threads that discuss Chalcedon, much less the nastier threads which argue about it in the private forum. We reserve arguments and heated discussions about Chalcedon for a private forum we have, and it is my guess that if this thread gets any more heated it will probably end up there.
I think it is regrettable that Deusveritasest hijacked the other thread, and his style was a bit confrontational, but now that the subject has come up I just want to give you a little information and background to help you understand where the OO's are coming from.
We reject Chalcedon because of our perception that certain language used, as well as certain actions taken at the council, could be read in a heretical Theodorean (Nestorian) manner. Among other things, we object to certain language in the Tome of Leo, as well as the exoneration of some heretical theologians during the council.
There were also, however, certain things said and done at the council which could be read in an Orthodox, Cyrillian, manner, such as the anathema against Nestorius.
Basically, the council can be, and has been, interpreted both ways.
This isn't a lie.
Below are just two examples of Chalcedon and Pope Leo being spoken of in an approving manner by the Church of the East, which still venerates Nestorius:
1. From the website Nestorian.org:
3. In 451, however, the new emperor Marcian summoned a new council which met at Chalcedon.http://www.nestorian.org/the_christological_controversi.html
a. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches and monophysitism.
b. It accepted the teachings of Pope Leo I, who said that Christ had two natures, human and divine. (How was this different from Nestorianism?)
2. From Chapter 6 of the Catechism of the Assyrian Church of the East:
5) How many Ecumenical Councils do we recognize?http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html
There were two truly Ecumenical Councils, 1) the Council of Nicea; and, 2) The Council of Constantinople; and, possibly three, the Council of Chalcedon, because the Church in the West (the Roman Byzantine Empire) returned to the Orthodox Faith, embracing two natures in Christ
At the time of the council, and for some time afterward, there were some Chalcedonians--including some in leadership positions--who gave it a Theodorean interpretation. Some, Chalcedonians, however, such as the Scythian Monks, gave it an Orthodox interpretation. It was because of this that your Fifth Council was held, and at that council the possibility of a Theodorean interpretation was eliminated. It is because of your Fifth Council that many theologians now say the EO's and OO's now have the same Christology.
Of course this has all been discussed and argued over extensively here at OC.net. Like I said, the more polemical discussions go in a private forum. If you are interested in that sort of thing, you can pm Fr. Chris and ask him for admission there.
Anyway, I hope I gave you some idea of where we are coming from so you don't think we are just a bunch of liars.
Again, welcome to the forum. I look forward to your posts, and to discussing many different kinds of topics with you.