|WikiProject Christianity / Theology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
A Definition Not a Creed
Notwithstanding that this looks (a bit) like the Nicene Creed, it is the general practice to refer to it as the Chalcedonian Definition, on the basis that the creed remained that of Nicea. A net search on "Chalcedonian Creed" mostly brings up encycpopedias that are derived from Wikipedia. So the title of this article is wrong. MnJWalker 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. Srnec 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The complete text
The article does not give the complete text, but only one paragraph from it. The bishops at Chalcedon, when consulted about the Definition as few years later (in 457-8, see the Codex Encyclius in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz, II.5, 24-98), supported the Definition, but made very little reference to this paragraph. For them the real heart of the Definition was in its earlier sections, where it confirmed the Nicene Creed and acclaimed Cyril of Alexandria as its authoritative interpreter. -- Richard Meredith, 12.2.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
'coming together into'/ 'concurring in'
Notice the difference between 'coming together into one person and one hypostasis' in the introduction to this article and 'concurring in one person and subsistence' in the full translation given below. The first is right: the meaning of the Greek is not that 'the person and hypostasis/subsistence' is the locale where the two natures are united, but that the natures united to form 'one person and hypostasis', the word 'person' not having its modern meaning of a rational subject, but meaning simply 'one real entity' (see Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, on 'prosopon'). Richard Meredith 12.2.2012