the very source from which Leo had drawn his concept of the community of operations and of suffering of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. If Leo speaks of something common in God and human being, then he means, in the terminology of the Antiochenes, their common prosopon, and, in the words of Augustine, which he takes up in his Tome, that unity (unitas) 'which is known in each of the two natures'. The council could assent to that through the words of Basil of Seleucia. Even Nestorius would have no objection, as particularly his second apologia (CPG 5751) shows. This 'unity of person', as the 433 formula of union portrays it, can be recognised when reading in the Bible statements which were here called 'combined'. Because, as Leo says, 'by God's majesty the lowliness was assumed', the ignominy of the cross and the glory of the resurrection are something common to the divine and the human nature. In what is common (which, one has to add, always remains a paradox) is 'the unity of the person in both natures to be recognised'.

To sum up, what separates Alexandria from Rome and Antioch is a difference in terminology, which derives from the two divergent traditions of anti-Arian exegesis and is based on their different Christological perspectives. What separates them still remained, even if Chalcedon's Definitio fidei tried to combine both interpretations. This combining is achieved because the council added to Leo's formula (which stresses the preservation of the characteristics of each of the two natures and the coming together of these characteristics in a single person): 'and indeed31 in one single hypostasis'.

The reception of Chalcedon

The Definitio fidei of Chalcedon is open to two interpretations, one Cyrillian and one Leonine. According to the Leonine interpretation, the Antiochene legacy remains intact. Therefore it is not apropos, when narrating the history of Chalcedon's reception, to distinguish a 'strict Chalcedonianism' from other modes of reception. For if there had been a 'strict Chalcedonianism', then it could not have been anything but either a mere repetition of the Definitio or an attempt to nullify what separates the two Christologies the Definitio combines by stressing what unites them. Each time the latter approach was undertaken, one side won. Scholars like M. Richard, Ch. Moeller or A. Grillmeier (to name but the most prominent), who supported the idea of a 'strict Chalcedonianism' and wanted to find it in the sources, in fact equated Chalcedon with the Leonine interpretation. It was their intention, among other concerns, to introduce the

0 0

Post a comment