Abstract
The Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon declared in their dogmatic formula that Christ’s two natures ‘coincide in one prosôpon and one hypostasis.’ The Fathers at the Second Council of Constantinople interpreted this differently to mean the existence of only one hypostasis or prosôpon in Christ. The question then to be answered: Is there any real theological significance in the substitution of ‘or’ for ‘and’ in the Chalcedonian’s formula? In other words, do the Fathers at Chalcedon and Constantinople actually mean the same thing when they speak differently about how hypostasis and prosôpon ought to be linked? More to the point, did the Fathers at Chalcedon intend to introduce an Antiochene christological phrase into their dogmatic formula when they chose to include ‘one prosôpon’ there? If so, did the inclusion of this phrase support the non-Chalcedonian charge that the Fathers at Chalcedon had been infected with the Nestorian heresy?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
