No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
La définition christologique à Chalcédoine (suite)
... He confessed one nature of Christ after the union of the two natures but not Christ's consubstantiality with us. At the Second Council of Ephesus (449) The Christological definition of the council was, according to its own understanding, an interpretation of the teaching of the fathers and of Nicaea, and a compromise in the spirit of Cyril, according to more recent research (de Halleux 1976;Hainthaler 2006). The definition of Chalcedon took the step of distinguishing physis and hypostasis in Christology: Christ is one prosopon (resp. ...
In this article, the author addresses the problem of the translation of a passage from the Chalcedonian Creed as found in the Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych. The author’s thesis is that it does not correspond to the theological thought of the Council Fathers behind this part of the definition. The aim of the article is to justify this thesis and to propose an alternative translation. The method used is complex. Firstly, the author reconstructs the genesis of the passage through a study of the historical and philosophical-theological context of its origin and a literary analysis. Then, based on the results of this research, the author carries out an analysis of the Fathers’ Christology contained in the passages, which allows the initial translation to be called into question. The article is therefore divided as follows: a grammatical analysis of the passage; the wide and the narrow context of the origin of the text of the creed; a literary analysis; a theological analysis and the presentation of the new translation. In addition to the text of the Confession, the main sources studied are Cyril of Alexandria’s Epistula Altera ad Nestorium and Pope Leo’s Tomus ad Flavianum. The conclusions of the research highlight well the difference between the heretics and the Church Fathers in the use of ancient philosophy to express the faith. They furthermore reveal a metaphysical novum of the concepts of person and nature arising from the content of the Creed and the patristic reflection of the time, an issue which is still relevant today and which the translation discussed above unfortunately somewhat overshadows.
This article analyses the dyothelete and dyenergist Christology in the following texts: the Horos and the Logos Prosphonetikos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681), the epistle of pope Agatho, which became officially authorized as a teaching text, and the letter of the roman synod of the 125 bishops. The results of this analysis are compared with the Christology of the Lateran Council of 649 and the theology of Maximus the Confessor, upon which it is based. The council claims to define things in a way that complements and concludes the results of the council of Chalcedon (451) by designating the will and the capacity to act as properties of the ontological categories of φύσις/οὐσία and thus formulating the doctrine of the double willing and acting of Christ. In fact, the council draws on text of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon but changes the order of priority of the texts (which were made authoritative in Chalcedon) of Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I. so that the Tomus Leonis, which contains pointed statements that were controversial both during and after Chalcedon, becomes the hermeneutical key to the doctrine of two natures. Both natures become subjects of willing and acting and the meaning of the ὑπόστασις remains underdeveloped in comparison with that of φύσις and πρόσωπον. Thus the council neither comes to terms with the development of Leo’s thought nor with the Christology of the Lateran Councils nor with the Christology of Maximus. In fact, fundamental distinctions in the meaning of θέλημα and ἐνέργεια as well as of φύσις and ὑπόστασις have not been taken into consideration by the council in 681. Instead, the council remains with the initial ontological concepts due to its recourse to an ontologized Tomus Leonis. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that this is the first ecumenical council to establish the primacy of and infallibility of the Roman Pope. The final concern of this article is to ask how this development could come about.
Z jednej strony, stosunki z Rzymem i opozycją anty-chalcedońską, a z drugiej stosunki z patriarchą Konstantynopola i troska o prawowierność poddanych to cztery podstawowe kierunki polityki religijnej cesarza Leona I. Bilans jego panowania w tym zakresie wydaje się być pozytywny. Cesarz zdołał utrzymać dobre stosunki z papieżem Leo I Wielkim i z jego następcami, mimo że niekiedy musiał iść na kompromis z przeciwnikami decyzji, które zostały przyjęte w roku 451 przez Sobór Chalcedoński. Z kolei papież, mimo że 28 kanon tegoż soboru przyznał mu w hierarchii patriarchów tylko prymat honoru, był w stanie współpracować z Konstantynopolem w celu było zachowania jedności Kościoła. W ten sposób cesarz Leon I i papież Leon I udowodnili nie tylko wysoką kulturę osobistą, ale przede wszystkim dalekowzroczność swej polityki religijnej. Z kolei ważnym momentem w stosunkach cesarza z patriarchą Konstantynopola była koronacja cesarska Leona, w której patriarcha odegrał bardzo ważną rolę. Cesarz poświęcał również wiele uwagi życiu duchowemu swych poddanych, o czym świadczy m.in. sprowadzenie relikwii Matki Bożej do stolicy i propagowanie jej kultu, co dla z punktu widzenia postanowień Soboru Chalcedońskiego było niezwykle ważne. Działania te stawiają w dobrym świetle nie tylko Leona I, lecz także politykę religijną dworu cesarskiego i patriarchatu Konstantynopola za jego panowania. Napięcia religijne i polityczne powstały dopiero kilka lat po śmierci cesarza, a ich wyrazem była tzw. schizma akacjańska (484-519).
An appropriate analysis of the proceedings at the fourth ecumenical council (451 AD) brings to light uncommon forms of thought that are still of practical significance today. Circumstantial evidence from the record of the final editing of the Chalcedonian Definition supports the conclusion that at least some of the Fathers thought in terms of complementarity. Given one type of problem structure, that type of thinking allows in particular the coordination of competing or even conflicting explanations (parallel complementarity). Given another problem structure, it allows the linking of explanations that might previously have been considered independent or even irrelevant before (circular complementarity). If, despite its unanimous acceptance, the Definition did not lead to lasting unity and peace within Christendom, one of the reasons could be the difficulties associated with thinking in terms of complementarity: Lack of motivation to adopt this unconventional form of thought (which goes beyond Piagetian formal operations when fully developed), unfamiliarity with its non traditional logic, unsuitable world views, and/or an as yet insufficient level of cognitive development. Evidence for this hypothesis is presented. The usefulness of thinking in terms of complementary is also argued from the history of Christology since 451 and from modern examples.
The earliest biblical confessions of Jesus were varied, yet linked. He was the Messiah, the fulfilment of Israel’s hopes and the eschatological accomplishment of God’s reign, even as he was also a prophet promised by Moses and a teacher in the wisdom tradition. His death demonstrated God’s salvation; his resurrection proclaimed him alive. Therefore, as the Christian community moved from the Old Testament, the word of God, to the Christian Bible, these different Christologies were connected. Nevertheless, in constantly changing contexts, diverse Christological confessions emerged within a broader understanding of the apostolic kerygma.The faith of Christians quickly came to be determined by their hope of being redeemed by God himself. From the Old Testament prophets, the community learned that the one God of salvation (Isaiah 43.11, 45.21, 63.9) brought this salvation in Jesus Christ. This Jesus was the presence of God on earth (see Epistle of Barnabas 3.35–37). ‘Brothers, we must think about Jesus Christ, as we do about God, the judge of the living and the dead. We ought not to think lowly things about our salvation,’ says 2 Clement, the oldest extant Greek homily. These words correspond with Barnabas: God is the saviour (Isaiah 49.7); he is the Lord (Kyrios) whose suffering for our sake made Christians the true heirs of Moses’ Testament.Such juxtaposed but reconciled claims – Old Testament monotheism and belief in Jesus Christ as the redeemer – led to the first Christian theology. Although modern scholarship has sometimes depicted it as heretical modalistic monarchianism, in fact it reproduced the Great Church’s doctrine. When Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) and Tertullian (d. after 220) contested it, it was the majority formula of faith: Jesus Christ is God.
Cyril of Alexandria succeeded his uncle Theophilus as archbishop of Alexandria in 412. Soon after Nestorius had been consecrated archbishop of Constantinople in 428, he took sides with those who rejected the title "Mother of God" for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Cyril responded to what in his eyes was a heretical Christology, according to which Christ was divided into two sons, the divine Word and the man Jesus. Nestorius's teaching was condemned and Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius canonized. In reception of council of Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria played a major role. Cyril of Alexandria wrote in Greek, and of the vast majority of his writings that are still extant we have Greek texts. Since Chalcedonians in East fully accepted the council of Constantinople as the fifth ecumenical council and its decisions as normative, Cyril of Alexandria's Christology has been most influential among them up to the present day.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.