|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
What does "Dyophysitic" mean under "Chalcedonian" entry?
- Seems to refer to the dual nature of Christ, fully divine and fully human.
Import of this page
This article seems, to me, to largely serve as a support article to the Council of Chalcedon, hypostatic union, and monophysitism. As such, I tried to provide all the pertinent information, without duplicating everything on those pages. I see no reason to "re-invent the wheel," and have directed links to where more in-depth info can be found for those who are interested. 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. --Michael C. Price talk 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, just added one tilde too many. -- Pastordavid 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Are the majority of churches Chalcedonian? In my experience the majority of Protestant churches (which would also be the majority of overall churches, even if not the majority of Christians) don't recognize any of the great councils. Being "Chalcedonian" would seem to infer that one recognizes the Council of 451. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the majority of mainline protestant churches do accept the decrees of the first four ecumenical councils. Add up Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist (I'm probably missing some in there), and you have the vast majority of the world's Christians. Pastordavid 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- While it is true that many Protestants will not admit to allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon, it is the reality that the vast almost ALL Christians who did not break from the main body of the Church before the Council of Chalcedon will subscribe precisely to the Christology promoted at the Council. The only two major bodies who have traditionally not held entirely to Chalcedonian theology are the Assyrian Church of the East (which [rejecting even the Council of Ephesus] wavers on the side of emphasizing the twoness of Christ more than Chalcedon) and the Oriental Orthodox Church (which wavers on the side of emphasizing the oneness of Christ more than Chalcedon). Deusveritasest (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I just did a search for "Chalcedonianism" and found that there wasn't even an article under that name. I think it would be helpful to create an article by that name and simply have it redirect to this article. Does anyone here agree? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is Chalcedonian?
Does a person qualify as a Chalcedonian merely if they accept the Definition of the Faith offered at Chalcedon or must a person accept the Council wholesale, including the Tome of Leo, the deposition of Dioscorus, and finally the restoration of Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa? Deusveritasest (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This statement: "Those who held to the non-Chalcedonian Christologies called the doctrine of the hypostatic union dyophysite." at the end of the article is highly erroneous. The doctrine of the hypostatic union was really formulated by Cyril of Alexandria and confirmed at the Council of Ephesus, 20 years before Chalcedon. If anything, the Non-Chalcedonians viewed the doctrine of the hypostatic union as inherently Miaphysite and condemned the Chalcedonians for perverting that very doctrine. Thus to say that the Oriental Orthodox called the hypostatic union dyophysite is absurd and is showing a grievous misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the hypostatic union actually is. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of systems of thought within Christianity do not take this form of "(adjective) Christianity" but rather take the form "(adjective)ism" or sometimes "(adjective) Church". Why should this article be the exception? I personally suggest that this article be moved to "Chalcedonianism". Deusveritasest (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Reasons to doubt the neutrality of specific sentences are given in the hidden text. In general, the recent and highly debatable "discovery" that the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian division is basically meaningless is aggressively promoted as fact, despite the many centuries of struggles along these divisions. No source is cited for the claim that this opinion is prevalent in academia. See, on the other hand, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, 1971, pp. 133-143 for evidence of very real doctrinal differences, as an Indian Miaphysite theologian considers the Chalcedonian wording to be unacceptably evocative of Nestorianism, andthe 6th council to have practically heretical implications.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)