Talk:Chalcedonian Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Question[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Majority Chalcedonian?[edit]

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 70.72.184.155 (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)

"Chalcedonianism"[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Hypostatic union[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ChalcedonianChalcedonian Christianity — "Chalcedonian" is an adjective, and according to our naming conventions, adjectives should redirect to nouns. Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support — note that the lead is going to need some copy editing, as well. If you read the wole thing it's clear that this name change is a good idea, and part of the reason why is that the first part of the lead is (currently) written to support the dicdef style of the (current) article title.
    V = I * R (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chalcedonian Christianity[edit]

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)

Neutrality[edit]

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.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Opposed, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)



Chalcedonian ChristianityChalcedonianism — All other articles about a system of Christian thought appear to be in the latter format: "Catholicism", "Eutychianism", "Nestorianism", "Apollinarianism", "Pelagianism", "Unitarianism", "Non-Chalcedonianism", etc. I cannot really think of any others that take the form of "______ Christianity" except for "Orthodox Christianity", and that is obviously done for the purpose of distinguishing from Orthodox Judaism. —Deusveritasest (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose The noun-form simply does not appear to be in common use - compare 600 gbookhits vs 1900 for the adjective [1], and most of these are for "neo-C" and "anti-C". There is no church, denomination or heresy usually so called, unlike the examples given above. Note the move discussion only last September. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am appealing simply to the practice of Wikipedia. And I showed evidence that it is the case that many like articles are listed in the form of "______ism". So why isn't that reason enough to change, simply for the sake of intra-Wiki conformity? Deusveritasest (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Readers don't really care about intra-wiki conformity. What they care about is that articles are found under recognizable titles. That's why we're supposed to use the the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. Jafeluv (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.