Chalcedonian Definition: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
imported>Remsense
m Reverted 1 edit by Austien Robin (talk) to last revision by 207.172.72.75
 
imported>Ackerman200
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Theological resolution adopted at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)}}
{{Short description|Theological resolution adopted at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)}}
{{more citations needed|date=January 2011}}{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}
{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}


The '''Chalcedonian Definition''' (also called the '''Chalcedonian Creed''' or the '''Definition of Chalcedon''') is the declaration of the [[dyophysitism]] of [[Hypostatic union|Christ's nature]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-03-05 |title=Chalcedonian Christianity |url=https://slife.org/chalcedonian-christianity/ |access-date=2022-12-22 |website=The Spiritual Life |language=en-US}}</ref> adopted at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in AD 451. [[Chalcedon]] was an [[Early centres of Christianity#Western Anatolia|early centre]] of Christianity located in [[Asia Minor]]. The council was the fourth of the [[First seven Ecumenical Councils|ecumenical councils]] that are accepted by [[Chalcedonian]] churches which include the [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] and [[Eastern Orthodoxy|Orthodox]] churches.<ref name="Olson1999">{{cite book |last1=Olson |first1=Roger E. |title=The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition Reform |date=1 April 1999 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-1505-0 |page=158 |language=English}}</ref>
The '''Chalcedonian Definition''' (also called the '''Chalcedonian Creed''' or the '''Definition of Chalcedon''') is the declaration of the [[dyophysitism]] of [[Hypostatic union|Christ's nature]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-03-05 |title=Chalcedonian Christianity |url=https://slife.org/chalcedonian-christianity/ |access-date=2022-12-22 |website=The Spiritual Life |language=en-US}}</ref> adopted at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in AD 451. [[Chalcedon]] was an [[Early centres of Christianity#Western Anatolia|early centre]] of Christianity located in [[Asia Minor]]. The council was the fourth of the [[First seven Ecumenical Councils|ecumenical councils]] that are accepted by [[Chalcedonian]] churches which include the [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] and [[Eastern Orthodoxy|Orthodox]] churches.<ref name="Olson1999">{{cite book |last1=Olson |first1=Roger E. |title=The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition Reform |date=1 April 1999 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-1505-0 |page=158 |language=English}}</ref>
Line 20: Line 20:


==Oriental Orthodox dissent==
==Oriental Orthodox dissent==
The Chalcedonian Definition was written amid controversy between the [[Latin Church|Western]] and [[Eastern Christianity|Eastern churches]] over the meaning of the [[Incarnation (Christianity)|Incarnation]] (see [[Christology]]). The Western church readily accepted the creed, but some Eastern churches did not. Political disturbances prevented the Armenian bishops from attending. Even though Chalcedon reaffirmed the Third Council's condemnation of [[Nestorius]], the Non-Chalcedonians always suspected that the Chalcedonian Definition tended towards Nestorianism. This was in part because of the restoration of a number of bishops deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus, bishops who had previously indicated what appeared to be support of Nestorian positions.
The Chalcedonian Definition was written amid controversy between the [[Latin Church|Western]] and [[Eastern Christianity|Eastern churches]] over the meaning of the [[Incarnation (Christianity)|Incarnation]]. The Western church readily accepted the creed, but some Eastern churches did not. Political disturbances prevented the [[Armenian Apostolic Church|Armenian bishops]] from attending. Even though [[Council of Chalcedon|Chalcedon]] reaffirmed the Third Council's condemnation of [[Nestorianism|Nestorius]], the [[Oriental Orthodox Church|Non-Chalcedonians]] always suspected that the Chalcedonian Definition tended towards Nestorianism. This was in part because of the restoration of a number of bishops deposed at the [[Second Council of Ephesus]], bishops who had previously indicated what appeared to be support of Nestorian positions.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pelikan |first=Jaroslav |title=The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1971 |pages=266–277}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Grillmeier |first=Aloys |title=Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 1 |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |year=1975 |pages=543–560}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Price |first=Richard |title=The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon |publisher=Liverpool University Press |year=2005 |pages=20–35}}</ref>


The [[Coptic Church of Alexandria]] dissented, holding to [[Cyril of Alexandria]]'s preferred formula for the oneness of Christ's nature in the incarnation of God the Word as "out of two natures".{{sfn|Bindley|1899|pp=91–92}} Cyril's language is not consistent and he may have countenanced the view that it is possible to contemplate in theory two natures after the incarnation,{{sfn|Bindley|1899|pp=91–92}} but the Church of Alexandria felt that the Definition should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".
The [[Coptic Orthodox Church|Coptic Church of Alexandria]] dissented, holding to [[Cyril of Alexandria]]'s preferred formula for the oneness of Christ's nature in the [[Incarnation of Jesus|incarnation of God the Word]] as "out of two natures".{{sfn|Bindley|1899|pp=91–92}} Cyril's language is not consistent and he may have countenanced the view that it is possible to contemplate in theory two natures after the incarnation,{{sfn|Bindley|1899|pp=91–92}} but the Church of Alexandria felt that the Definition should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".


The definition defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one [[hypostatic union|hypostasis]]". The formal definition of "two natures" in Christ was understood by the critics of the council at the time, and is understood by many historians and theologians today, to side with western and Antiochene [[Christology]] and to diverge from the teaching of [[Cyril of Alexandria]], who always stressed that Christ is "one". However, a modern analysis of the sources of the creed (by A. de Halleux, in ''Revue Theologique de Louvain'' 7, 1976) and a reading of the acts, or proceedings, of the council show that the bishops considered Cyril the great authority and that even the language of "two natures" derives from him.
The definition defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one [[hypostatic union|hypostasis]]". The formal definition of "two natures" in Christ was understood by the critics of the council at the time, and is understood by many historians and theologians today, to side with Western and Antiochene [[Christology]] and to diverge from the teaching of [[Cyril of Alexandria]], who always stressed that Christ is "one". Modern analysis of the sources of the creed and the acts of the council show that the bishops considered Cyril the great authority and that even the language of "two natures" derives from him.<ref>{{cite journal |last=de Halleux |first=André |title=La définition christologique à Chalcédoine |journal=Revue Théologique de Louvain |volume=7 |year=1976 |pages=5–50}}</ref>


This [[Miaphysitism|miaphysite]] position, historically characterised by Chalcedonian followers as "[[monophysitism]]", though this is denied by the dissenters, formed the basis for the distinction of the [[Coptic Church]] of Egypt and [[Ethiopian Orthodox Church|Ethiopia]] and the "[[Syriac Orthodox Church|Jacobite]]" churches of [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syria]], and the [[Armenian Apostolic Church]] (see [[Oriental Orthodoxy]]) from other churches.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lynch |first=Joseph H. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/276274630 |title=Early Christianity: a brief history |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-513803-0 |location=New York |pages=174–176 |oclc=276274630}}</ref>
This [[Miaphysitism|miaphysite]] position, historically characterised by Chalcedonian followers as "[[monophysitism]]", though this is denied by the dissenters, formed the basis for the distinction of the [[Coptic Church|Coptic]], [[Ethiopian Orthodox Church|Ethiopian]], [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syriac]] and [[Armenian Apostolic Church|Armenian Apostolic]] churches.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lynch |first=Joseph H. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/276274630 |title=Early Christianity: a brief history |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-513803-0 |location=New York |pages=174–176 |oclc=276274630}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 11:43, 30 December 2025

Template:Short description Template:Christology

The Chalcedonian Definition (also called the Chalcedonian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon) is the declaration of the dyophysitism of Christ's nature,[1] adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor. The council was the fourth of the ecumenical councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Catholic and Orthodox churches.[2]

It was the first council not to be recognised by any Oriental Orthodox church; for this reason these churches may be classified as Non-Chalcedonian.

Context

The Council of Chalcedon was summoned to consider the Christological question in light of the "one-nature" view of Christ proposed by Eutyches, archimandrite at Constantinople, which prevailed at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, sometimes referred to as the "Robber Synod".[3]

The Council first solemnly ratified the Nicene Creed adopted in 325 and that creed as amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It also confirmed the authority of two synodical letters of Cyril of Alexandria and the letter of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople.Template:Sfn

Content

The full text of the definition reaffirms the decisions of the Council of Ephesus, the pre-eminence of the Creed of Nicaea (325) and the further definitions of the Council of Constantinople (381).Template:Sfn

In one of the translations into English, the key section, emphasizing the double nature of Christ (human and divine), runs:

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

— Template:Comma separated entries

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

The Definition implicitly addressed a number of popular heretical beliefs. The reference to "co-essential with the Father" was directed at Arianism; "co-essential with us" is directed at Apollinarianism; "Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably" refutes Eutychianism; and "indivisibly, inseparably" and "Theotokos" are against Nestorianism.[3]

Oriental Orthodox dissent

The Chalcedonian Definition was written amid controversy between the Western and Eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation. The Western church readily accepted the creed, but some Eastern churches did not. Political disturbances prevented the Armenian bishops from attending. Even though Chalcedon reaffirmed the Third Council's condemnation of Nestorius, the Non-Chalcedonians always suspected that the Chalcedonian Definition tended towards Nestorianism. This was in part because of the restoration of a number of bishops deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus, bishops who had previously indicated what appeared to be support of Nestorian positions.[4][5][6]

The Coptic Church of Alexandria dissented, holding to Cyril of Alexandria's preferred formula for the oneness of Christ's nature in the incarnation of God the Word as "out of two natures".Template:Sfn Cyril's language is not consistent and he may have countenanced the view that it is possible to contemplate in theory two natures after the incarnation,Template:Sfn but the Church of Alexandria felt that the Definition should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".

The definition defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one hypostasis". The formal definition of "two natures" in Christ was understood by the critics of the council at the time, and is understood by many historians and theologians today, to side with Western and Antiochene Christology and to diverge from the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, who always stressed that Christ is "one". Modern analysis of the sources of the creed and the acts of the council show that the bishops considered Cyril the great authority and that even the language of "two natures" derives from him.[7]

This miaphysite position, historically characterised by Chalcedonian followers as "monophysitism", though this is denied by the dissenters, formed the basis for the distinction of the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac and Armenian Apostolic churches.[8]

References

Script error: No such module "Portal".

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  4. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  5. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  8. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Sources

<templatestyles src="Refbegin/styles.css" />

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "If empty".Script error: No such module "template wrapper".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

External links

Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Chalcedonian_Definition&oldid=4313727"