Council of Chalcedon

(redirected from Chalcedonian)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.

Chalcedon, Council of,

fourth ecumenical council, convened in 451 by Pulcheria and Marcian, empress and emperor of the East, to settle the scandal of the Robber Synod and to discuss Eutychianism (see EutychesEutyches
, c.378–c.452, archimandrite in Constantinople, sponsor of Eutychianism, the first phase of Monophysitism. He was the leader in Constantinople of the most violent opponents of Nestorianism, among whom was Dioscurus, successor to St. Cyril (d.
..... Click the link for more information.
). It deposed the principals in the Robber Synod and destroyed the Eutychian party. Its great work, however, was its Definition regarding the nature and person of Jesus. Based upon the formulation given by Pope St. Leo I in his famous Tome to Flavian, it declared that, contrary to the view taken by Eutychianism (see EutychesEutyches
, c.378–c.452, archimandrite in Constantinople, sponsor of Eutychianism, the first phase of Monophysitism. He was the leader in Constantinople of the most violent opponents of Nestorianism, among whom was Dioscurus, successor to St. Cyril (d.
..... Click the link for more information.
) and MonophysitismMonophysitism
[Gr.,=belief in a single nature], a heresy of the 5th and 6th cent., which grew out of a reaction against Nestorianism. It was anticipated by Apollinarianism and was continuous with the principles of Eutyches, whose doctrine had been rejected in 451 at Chalcedon
..... Click the link for more information.
, the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures—one divine and one human. It was also proclaimed that these two natures exist inseparably in one person. This difference was a major factor in the Monophysite schism that divided the East for centuries. The council produced 28 disciplinary canons important for canon law in both the East and West. However, the Roman Catholic Church did not admit the 28th canon, which made the patriarch of Constantinople second only to the pope in Rome in precedence, until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
References in periodicals archive ?
Although medieval Eastern Christianity was more complex than the post-Niceno-Constantinopolitan theology which dominates today, Chalcedonian Christianity was not altogether uncommon and there is little reason to assume the early Muslim community to have been unaware of its presence and beliefs.
The Chalcedonian pattern of thought relates theology and its non-theological dialogue partners "without separation or division" (inseparable unity), "without confusion or change" (indissoluble differentiation), and "with asymmetrical ordering" (indestructible order).
For example, on the individual level, a person could convert from a militaristic form of Chalcedonian Christianity to a pacifist form of Islam, thereby moving from violence to agape, and closer to Christ.
An explicit doctrine of the humanity's in-existence in the hypostasis of the Logos which is, however, not yet denoted by the term enhypostatos emerges, as will be seen, in the Chalcedonian patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch.
Although local churches have the task of surviving, witnessing their faith and overcoming their divisions, signs of hope emerge, mainly through theological movements and the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), that represents all churches of the Middle East in four families: the Orthodox, the Reformed, the Catholic and the Chalcedonian "families".
His organic approach to physical reality impels him to revisit the Chalcedonian "two natures" formula and suggests that "in place of 'natures' we substitute 'open-ended systems'" in the formulation of the Chalcedonian decree (129).
According to Goehring, the diversity of Pachomian monasticism may have caused Abraham's downfall, as the Pachomian federation became Chalcedonian while Egypt's Christian population established a strong non-Chalcedonian identity.
McClendon found the culmination of the two-natures trajectory in the Chalcedonian definition deficient especially in regard to the third question, asking whether Jesus provides a paradigm for discipleship that disciples can really put into practice.
Chapter 6 engages Barth's Chalcedonian hermeneutics to show how the broad pattern of "inseparable unity," "ineffaceable difference," and "indestructible order" mirrors the detour-return paradigm in Ricoeur.
Thomas Finger has argued that Marpeck did not explicitly start from Chalcedonian Christology but worked his way to that position, a position he came to over time and in interaction with others.
4) Sherrard rightly saw it as necessary, in order to combat modern naturalism, to recover the metaphysical and anthropological implications of the Chalcedonian tradition.
While he rejects the overly simplified view provided by history of doctrine surveys (this is somewhat of a straw man few in Edwards's audience would hold this view of Chalcedon as a compromise between the Christological schools of Alexandria and Antioch), he also rejects its more widely-held corollary, that the orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian definition is largely Antiochene.