Info

same time Chalcedon rejects two misunderstandings: first, the interpretation of Cyril through Dioscorus' Monophysite Christology, and second, the assertion that the two natures, according to Leo, were Nestorius' teaching of two sons or persons.

In adding to Leo's formula the concept of the one hypostasis, the synod endorsed the interpretation of'union accordingto the hypostasis' ofboth Proclus and Flavian of Constantinople. In this way it signalled that it was possible to reconcile Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologies. Did Leo's formula mediate between the two by articulating a point of view transcending the two positions or did it ultimately amount to the formulation of a compromise, like the 433 formula of union, and thus in effect support the Christology of the Antiochenes? The question remained open.

The Definitio introduces the more comprehensive title 'one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ' as the subject of the confession. Then on a par he is called both 'Christ' and also 'the God Logos', while he is - following the Nicene confession - at the same time designated as the 'only-begotten Son' (John 1.14, 18). Thus Chalcedon combines the perspectives ofboth Cyrillian and Antiochene/Western Christology. 'The one Son of God', who, as Nicaea confesses, 'descended from heaven, became incarnate and assumed a human being' is, as 'God and human being' both 'Christ' and also 'the incarnate Logos'. As Christ he is 'known in two natures'. With this phrase the council has recourse to Basil of Seleucia's formula, which earlier at the council he had justified on the basis of Cyril's second letter to Nestorius. Like Basil of Seleucia, the council wanted to exclude any mixture (synchysis, krasis) and thus a Miaphysite Christology. But Basil also assumes, just as Chalcedon does, that the Council of Ephesus in 431 rejected the 'separation of the natures' attributed to Nestorius, namely the teaching of two sons or two independent subjects of Christological predication. This explains why the commission redacted into Basil's formula the famous adverbs 'unconfused, unchanged, undivided, unseparated'.

On the reception of the 'Tome of Leo' at Chalcedon

Basil of Seleucia's confession of 'one Christ who is known in two natures' raises a question about the three classes of biblical statements in the 433 formula of union. The synod of Chalcedon takes up this query and with its Definitio attempts to protect the concerns ofboth Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologies. However, it omits in its definition the concepts 'appropriation' and 'community (koinonia) of the natures in the prosopon' or 'common prosopon' and any justification for them. In this way it avoids recalling the failed attempts

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment