concept of 'neo-Chalcedonianism' for the sixth century, or more precisely for Justinian's Christology,32 which was accepted by the Fifth Ecumenical Council as church teaching. 'Neo-Chalcedonianism', they argued, in contrast to 'strict Chalcedonianism', failed to safeguard the letter and the spirit of the Definitio fidei of Chalcedon.

From a historical perspective, 'neo-Chalcedonianism' was, however, a victory for the Cyrillian interpretation of Chalcedon.33

The difference between Alexandrian and Roman-Antiochene perspectives remained. Cyrillian interpretation emphasises the Logos as the subject of the incarnation. It characterises the work of salvation as the act of the Logos, who from and in the Virgin (Luke 1.35; Matthew 1.20) created 'the new being' as the reality proper to him, by appropriating everything human 'apart from sin' (Hebrews 4.15).34 Theologians in this tradition sought a deeper understanding of the incarnation's subject, of the one hypostasis. For them the task was filling out with concrete religious detail the 'union according to the hypostasis' that Cyril had introduced as if from nowhere. They wanted to recognise, from and in the union, the upholding of the two natures in their characteristics and to make this accessible to the faithful, when they heard or read biblical narratives or apostolic preaching. The one hypostasis determined the Christological thought of'neo-Chalcedonianism', 'Dyophysite monenergism' and 'monothelitism': From the viewpoint of religious intuition, the hypostatic union of both natures was real, if it were seen as the basis for the one operation and will, which was manifested in Christ's miracles and suffering. For 'erudite theology' the one hypostasis was real, if it justified with it or derived from it such concepts as 'the one hypostatic energy (energeia)' and 'the one hypostatic will (thelesis) of the Incarnate'.35

The Leonine interpretation is principally concerned with preserving the two natures, that is, God's transcendence and what 'the human being Jesus Christ as mediator between God and humankind' (1 Timothy 2.5) contributes to the work of salvation. It is a question of both and hence of 'Christ, God and human being'. Salvation involves both God and the mediator, the sole innocent (as Leo and Theodore of Mopsuestia say) who through his unlawful death broke the claim of death of the devil and opened to human beings a

32 Cf. K.-H. Uthemann, 'KaiserJustinian'.

33 On the problems of terminology in the history of dogma, cf.K.-H. Uthemann, 'Neuchalkedonismus', 373-9.

34 This interpretation is mostly connected with the so-called physical or mystical theory of salvation. Cf.R. M. Hiibner, Die Einheit des Leibes Christi.

35 Cf. Uthemann, 'Neuchalkedonismus'; F. Winkelmann, Dermonenergetisch-monotheletische Streit.

0 0

Post a comment