Search

In the context of fifth-century ecclesiastical disputes, more specifically during the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon with its controversial canon 28, imperial communication to Christian clergy could not be as straightforward as usual. This article proposes that the diplomatic relationship between the Eastern Roman emperor Marcian (450–457 c.e.) and Bishop Leo I of Rome (440–461 c.e.) was governed by interdependence. Through examining the rhetoric of authority in Marcian's understudied letter to Leo from December 18, 451, and placing it in the context of its transmission history in two antithetical late-antique letter collections, this article demonstrates how Marcian's letter to Leo could be reused to defend consecutively both Rome and Constantinople thanks to its rhetorical subtletly. It argues that the divergent functions of Marcian's letter in the fifth-century Greek Chalcedonian letter collection B and the ninth-century Latin Collectio Thessalonicensis were made possible by its diplomatic phrasing and the ambiguity of the Emperor's position in theological disputes. Thus, it clarifies the functions of correspondence in ecclesiastical decision-making processes and adds to our understanding of textual and imperial authority in the Late Roman Empire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leo the Great wrote The Letter to Flavian in 449 as a Christological sermon against Eutyches' monophysite doctrine. This article, written in two parts, presents and analyzes the reception of Leo's Letter at the first five Chalcedonian sessions. For each session, we first provide general information and then examine the minutes from the session. The fourth and fifth sessions are covered here. It is shown that at the fourth session, the fathers solemnly expressed their agreement with Leo's Letter, and they considered it one of the fundamental documents of orthodox Christology. At the fifth session, during the discussions on the Chalcedonian Dogmatic Definition, Leo's Letter played an important role in the final formulation of Christological Diophysitism. The Appendix contains the first complete translation of The Dogmatic Letter to Flavian in the Croatian language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gregory illustrates the complex reception of Chalcedon in the West in the way he dealt with the Istrian Schism caused by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553. At issue was whether Chalcedon's decisions in their entirety or its doctrinal statements alone were inviolable. Gregory strongly urged the latter, influenced by initial papal support for the Fifth Council, his conviction that only those within the church would be saved and pastoral anxiety about the imminence of the eschaton. However, his literary legacy also demonstrates his commitment to the soteriological significance of the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures of Christ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni is the property of Editrice Morcelliana S.p.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Among the issues remaining to be addressed along the path to reconciliation between the "Eastern" and "Oriental" Orthodox is the characterisation of Oriental teachers as heretics in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite. The mere suggestion of liturgical revision to reflect the agreement that multiple theological vocabularies are legitimate and therefore theologians associated with them should not be anathematized or deprecated has been met with fierce opposition from some Eastern Orthodox. This paper considers what might actually be involved in such a revision, taking as an example the texts for the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon. It suggests that the extent of necessary revision would be far less than is perhaps feared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In debates over the Christological doctrine proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, two different Christological stances took shape that in fact carried not only significant theological consequences, but also profound philosophical ones. In the present paper, I shall reflect upon the philosophical premises and arguments employed by both the defenders of Chalcedon and their adversaries. As I shall seek to show, both sides differed, among other things, in regard to their understanding of the individual entity as such. The Miaphysite adversaries of the Chalcedonian Horos adopted what was, from a philosophical point of view, a quite traditional elucidation of individual entities in terms of particular essence. On the other hand, the Neo-Chalcedonian defenders of the Horos developed an original interpretation of the individual entity as explicable in terms of its existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on a Christological approach to the relationship between divine love and human, this article advocates for a Christian understanding of the non-duality between self and other - an idea advocated by Mahayana Buddhism in China. The argument consists of three major parts. Firstly, it establishes its doctrinal foundation by retrieving the Christological tradition of the councils of Chalcedon and the Third Constantinople as well as the theology of Maximus the Confessor. Secondly, it demonstrates the Chinese characters of this Christological understanding by engaging into a dialogue with Confucianism on the human love in Jesus Christ and the reciprocity between self and other, and by interpreting the incarnation and exaltation of Jesus Christ from the Buddhist perspective of non-duality of self and other. Thirdly, it further explains its contemporary relevance by illustrating its compatibility with the contemporary inter-disciplinary studies of altruism, and by elaborating its implications for understanding of the relationship between church and society in contemporary China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the theological and political aspects of the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Topics discussed include purpose of the Council, examination on the Council as a political assembly, and important consequence of the centrality of belief in Christianity. It also looks at the essential role of the emperor and his officials, and significance of the reigns of Justin and Justinian in the Church.

This article discusses the sources of the 2014 Agreed Statement on Christology, which include not only the 433 Formula of Union and the teaching of St Cyril of Alexandria but also some language from the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Second Council of Constantinople (553), and the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681). It also examines the rejection of Eutychianism and Nestorianism, as well as the Anglican Christology represented by Richard Hooker and the firm connection drawn between the hypostatic union and Christ’s work of salvation. The article also presents the text in comparison and contrast with two Christological declarations shared by the Roman Catholic Church and the Coptic Pope Shenouda III (1973) and the Assyrian Church of the East (1994). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author focuses on the six Oriental Orthodox Churches that did not receive the Christological teachings of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and have not been in full communion with the rest of the Christian world since that time. The article briefly describes the individual churches and their present situation, identifies certain characteristics of those churches, and then focuses on the achievement of the international dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox that has been in progress since 2004. It concludes with reflections on the prospects for the reestablishment of full communion and the role the Bishop of Rome might play among these reconciled churches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the least charitable view of Cyril's part in the “Nestorian controversy,” it was for him nothing more than that—a political scheme to eject a man whose scrutiny he had come to fear from a see whose power he had always envied. This account suggests that his apparent tergiversations tell us nothing of his theology: as a Christian he believed what the rest of Christendom believed, but as a prince of the church he turned his coat whenever this would serve to disguise his malice or change the wind. The more generous account reproaches Cyril not with bad faith but with bad logic: throughout his work, he oscillates between conflicting paradigms, in one of which the true subject of Christology is the Word who assumes the flesh, while in the other Christ has only the “compositional” unity that results from the coming together of two natures. The first prefigures the Chalcedonian shibboleth “one person in two natures”; the second Cyril himself encapsulated in the formula “from two natures,” which can be taken to entail that after the union there were no longer two natures but one. That Cyril himself drew this conclusion, contradicting the Chalcedonian Definition before he had heard it, is put beyond doubt for many by his defiant reiteration of a formula that he derived without knowing it from Apollinarius: “one nature [phusis] of the Word enfleshed.” [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the orthodoxy within the Christian community. Explored is the Creed of Constantinople, mentioning the approval of the Nicene Creed by the Council of Constantinople. Discussed is the public ministry in the Nicene Creed, along with the Definition of Faith by the Council of Chalcedon.

The quest for orthodoxy began in the earliest days of Christianity, and has continued unabated until today, after two thousand years of church councils and theological argument. In the western church, the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) is generally taken to be a watershed, or even to have settled the most important questions. This was not the case in the east, where Chalcedon was immediately questioned, leading to the separation of the eastern churches. Byzantinists tend to suppose that the ending of iconoclasm in AD 843 characterised the nature of Byzantine orthodoxy for the future. This paper argues that 'orthodoxy' was always fluid, and that its definition, and still more its imposition, were always fought over, and required constant effort, energy and an outpouring of oral and written argument. This effort was costly for institutions and individuals alike, and was far less successful than it seems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Rivista di Storia del Cristianesimo is the property of Editrice Morcelliana S.p.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This essay first sketches some issues of ethnic or religious identity and their possible relevance to the late Roman Near East, and then surveys the various labels attached by contemporaries to those within the Church who opposed the doctrines proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, and proclaimed instead a one-nature Christology. Its main purpose is to examine the very extensive and detailed contemporary evidence from the pre-Islamic period for the evolving role of Syriac in what would later become the Syrian Orthodox Church. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an investigation to find the culprits who deliberately erased the official records of the Council of Chalcedon gathering in 449 Common Era (CE) in Ephesus, in order to debate on ecclesiastic issues that would define the articles of the Catholic faith. It mentions the problems that erupted when the Bishops of the Eastern Roman empire gathered to continue the debate in 451 CE, due to the absence of written records of the last meeting.

The analysis of Breviarium 11-14 raises various questions, e.g. why the theology of Chalcedon is nearly missing. Neither the Chalcedonense nor the Tomus Leonis are quoted. Only the position of Eutyches and that of Flavian become clear. Thus the tendency of the Breviarium seems to be sceptical towards interpretations according to which the Christological debate can be seen as victory of a clear position of the bishops of Rome. Even the canons of Chalcedon (with canon 28) are located on a wrong place in the narrative order, but here Liberatus follows only his sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how the Byzantine Church embraced Chalcedonian beliefs from 451 to 553. During the reigns of Byzantine Emperors Justin I and Justinian I, both church and state united in their desire to create the Council of Chalcedon, which began by asserting its beliefs in the Nicene Creed. Other subjects considered include non-Chalcedonian, also known as Miaphysite, ecclesiastics; the Church of the East, or pre-Ephesian, doctrines; Chalcedonian and Byzantine cultural identity; and the early Church doctrinal beliefs of Egypt and Syria.

The article discusses the statement by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology faculty regarding the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the significance of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, issued in Massachusetts on April 30, 2009. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is committed to proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and responsible for strengthening unity between Orthodox Churches. Details on the development of the Orthodox Church in the U.S. are given.

The article elaborates on the concept of incardination regarding the distribution of clergy in the Catholic Church, including its definition, historical precedents, and implementation. Changes in the church's policy towards this concept that occurred during various periods are described including the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trent, and Second Vatican Council. Current issues regarding the implementation of incardination are outlined, including the church structures that are capable of incardination.

At the Universityof Leiden, a research group is investigating the formation of a communal identity among West Syrian (or Syrian Orthodox) Christians after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Of the anti-Chalcedonians, the Syrian Orthodox were probably least likely to form a national or ethnic community. Yet a group emerged with its own distinctive literature and art, its own network and historical consciousness. In a process of adoption and rejection, the West Syrians selected elements from the cultures to which they were heirs and from those with which they came into contact, thus defining a position of their own. In order to study this phenomenon, scholars from various disciplines and affiliated to two different faculties are working together. This paper discusses their research programme and its basic hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article narrates the sequence and interplay of historical facts of the Council of Chalcedon which held its first session in the Church of Saint Euphenia at Chalcedon on October to November 451. The first six sessions of the largest council in Christian antiquity dealt with doctrinal questions while the succeeding ten sessions dealt with canonical questions. The article also points out where the difficulties arise in the historical account.

The article discusses the reception of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 in the Roman Catholic Church where Pope Leo I played a distinctive role. The council was viewed as an imperial ecclesiastical council summoned by the Byzantine Emperor Marcian who wished the bishops to decide a doctrine about Christ's nature. The article also narrates the discussion about Chlacedon from Pope Virgilius, Pope Gregory, the Union Council of Florence in 1439 to the 1951 encyclical "Sempiternus Rex Christi."

The article informs that the first Pan-Orthodox Conference at Rhodes, Greece in 1961 discussed the official pronouncement of the Orthodox Church of the East on the reception of Councils. It offers the doctrinal definition and reception of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 by the Orthodox Church. The article also concludes that the Council of Chalcedon was assured in the church but it was consolidated by a long process of theological controversies and ecclesiastical debates.

The article discusses the bearing of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 upon modern discussions about secular and humanum. It suggests that the continuity between Jesus Christ and the Chacledonian definition is a continuity of confession and worship of homologesis and doxology. The article also proposes a model which can criticise both theology and anthropology, whether theological or secular.

The article evaluates the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 to stress its historical problems. It suggests that the solution suggested by the Fourth Ecumenical Council was not congruous with the theological tradition affirmed by the universal Catholic Church in the earlier councils in Ephesus and Nicea. The article also opines that the Council of Chalcedon was controlled at every stage by the alliance of Emperor Marcian of Constantinople and the See of Rome led by Pope Leo I.

The article traces the emphasis on the Council of Chalcedon of 451, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in the Anglican tradition. The Act of Supremacy in 1559 by the Church of England declared that no doctrines in the four General Councils were to be considered heresy while the Chalcedonian doctrine of the Incarnation had been included in the Articles of Religion in 1563. The article also asserts that modern Anglican Chlacedonianism paid more attention to the distinction of natures of Christ.

The article presents an overview of the 2014 Agreed Christology of the Church of the Anglican Communion and the Oriental Orthodox Churches Statement. The topics discussed include the oldest and top schism of the Christian Church after the Chalcedon Council 451, the dialogues between the Byzantine Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, and the human personhood particularity.