Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?

Nestorians don't believe in two wills and two subjects. Church of the East who has been mislabelled as Nestorians predominantly live in Syria, Iran, and India is a church from the Apostolic time who still exists today. They rejected all councils from Roman Empire region except Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The confusion was caused because Nestorius used hypostasis a Greek term to refer to an Aramaic term kyana, an individuated nature. To his death he refused the accusation of two subjects leveled against him and wrote Bazaar of Heracleides (450) to defend his one composite subject Christology. For Nestorius, the unity between the Logos and His tabernacle is analogous to human soul and body union. Christ's body can be killed but the Logos can't suffer, 'The body they can kill but soul they can't.' Here, Nestorius merely continuing his grand teacher Diodore of Tarsus who combatted Apollinaris' theopaschism, a belief that divinity can suffer which was condemned at Constantinople (381).

Miaphysites don't believe in one simple nature and will. Oriental Orthodox who has been mislabelled as Monophysites predominantly live in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, and India is a church from the Apostolic time who still exists today. They rejected all councils from Roman Empire region except Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431). The confusion was caused because Severus used physis a Greek term to refer to an individual person. To his death he refused the accusation of one simple nature and will leveled against him. Miaphysites condemned Eutyches (Dioscorus at Ephesus exonerated Eutyches based on his Ephesian miaphysite Christology but later condemned him for distorting Cyrilline Christology). For Severus, the unity between the Logos and His flesh is analogous to human soul and flesh psychosomatic union. The Logos can be killed in His own flesh impassibly, 'A sword will pierce your own soul too.' Here, Severus merely continuing great tradition from his Antiochene See who combatted Samosatan's docetism, a belief that Christ didn't suffer which was condemned at Antioch (268).

Fr. Aloys Grillmeier in his book Christ in Christian Tradition (3 vols) offers a balance view that Chalcedon neither favor Alexandrian nor Antiochene Christology. He traced the Christological developments and showed how Leonine Christology championed at Chalcedon (451) as a unique Latin Christology not a moderation of the two schools. This is why both Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East rejected Chalcedon. Severus (OO) rejected Chalcedon because it divides the miaphysis of Logos incarnate into two and Babai the Great (CE) refused Chalcedon because it confuses the kyana of the Logos and His tabernacle into one.

In Alexandrian, physis is used in reference to hypostasis (cf. Hans van Loon The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, BRILL monograph) this is why Ephesian one nature is not a reference to essence but person. In Antiochene, hypostasis is used in reference to ousia (cf. Geevarghese Chediath, The Christology of Mar Babai the Great) this is why Antiochene two hypostases is not a reference to dual subject but two natures. In Latin, there is no confusion regarding physis or hypostasis by using Latin term substantia and persona it's clear from the start that substantia refer only to essence and persona to person. Sadly, Pope St. Leo's Tome was translated poorly into Greek in 448 where instead of translating substantia into ousia it was translated into physis which can be read as person in Alexandrian. Later he reworked his Tome with a proper Greek translation to avoid possible misreading to the Palestinian monks in 453 (cf. Susan Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, BRILL monograph).

The principal difference of Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Latin Christology is not in over emphasis between one composite nature versus two distinct natures. Leonine Christology distinguish the unity in one person and the distinction in two natures. While both Alexandrian and Antiochene talk about unity and distinction using one terminology either one composite nature or two distinct natures. In this sense Chalcedon is not a compromise or moderate view between the two but a unique view favoring neither yet accommodate the two schools by locating the unity in term of one person and the distinction in term of two essences. In 1994 Pope St. John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV mutually lifted anathemas. In 1978 Pope Bl. Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III mutually signed an agreement to revisit Chalcedon and seek reconciliation.