Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T12:35:17.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Past creeds and present formula at the Council of Chalcedon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Stuart G. Hall
Stuart G. Hall*
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Formula by which the Council of Chalcedon in 451 defined the Person of Christ is a classic case of the deliberate adjustment and interpretation of the past to suit a present need. The assembled bishops at their fifth session gave their assent to a document which not merely prescribed a theological position in the face of the doctrines of Eutyches and Nestorius, but justified doing so in the face of historically-based objections to the enterprise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 33: The Church Retrospective , 1997 , pp. 19 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The text is accessible in English in Stevenson, J., Creeds, Councils and Controversies, new edn revised by Frend, W. H. C. (London, 1989), no. 246 Google Scholar, itself based on The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, ed. with introduction and notes by T. Herbert Bindley, 4th edn rev. by F. W. Green (London, 1950), pp. 191–3, 232–5. For most purposes this is satisfactory, but Bindley and Green use a text of the Greek, based on Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 vols (Florence, 1759–1827), 7, cols 108–17 which disagrees at crucial points with the critical text in Eduard Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (Berlin and Leipzig, 1933) [hereafter ACO], II.1.2, pp. 126–30 = Actio 5.30-34.

2 ACO, II.1.2, p. 126 11. 12–15 (= Actio 5.31).

3 The subject was momentously and controversially set out by Walter Bauer in Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 10 (Tubingen, 1934; 2nd edn rev. by Georg Strecker, 1964), and full documentation, critique, and updating in the English version ed. by Robert A. Kraft, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London, 1972), where other views are discussed.

4 ACO, II. 1.2, p. 78 11. 10–15 = Actio 3.2. Schwartz is almost alone in reporting this as the third session (Actio). Most writers (including Bindley and Green) call this the second session, following the order set out in Charles Joseph Hefele and Henri Leclerq, Histoire des conciles, 2/ii (Paris, 1908), pp. 655–6. R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London, 1953), pp. 208–9 n. 1, seems to follow Schwartz.

5 Actio 3.3.

6 Actio 3.4-9.

7 Actio 3.11-12.

8 Actio 3.13-15.

9 For the origins of C see Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn (London, 1972), pp. 296–321 Google Scholar; Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, ‘Nicano-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntnis’, Theologische Realenzyklopadie, 24 (Berlin, 1994), pp. 444–56 Google Scholar.

10 Both texts accessible in Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, pp. 309–10.

11 Canon 3 of Constantinople; Canons 9, 17, 28 of Chalcedon. See Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, pp. 117, 361–2.

12 Actio 5.31; ACO, II.1.2, p. 127 11. 4–8.

13 Actio 5.34; ACO, II. 1.2, p. 128 11. 15–25.

14 Ibid., pp. 128 1. 25–129 1. 6.

15 Ibid., p. 129 11. 6–16.

16 Cyril’s 2nd Letter to Nestorius, 2–3, and Letter to John of Antioch, 3–5, and Leo’s Tome to Flavian, 2; all accessible in Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, pp. 295–6 (22e-23a), 314–15 (105e-106c), 337.

17 Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, pp. 350–1.

18 Bindley, Oecumenical Documents, pp. 191–2 with note on p. 194; translation p. 233.

19 ACO II.1.2 p. 79 II. 16–26; p. 80 11. 3–16 [my translations].

20 Ibid., II.1.2, p. 127 11. 10–19; p. the pure text; lines indicate omissions.

21 E. Schwartz, ‘Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon’, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 25 (1926), pp. 38–88, esp. 76–8 idem, ACO, II. 1.2, p. VI.

22 Kelly, Creeds, pp. 348–51; Hauschild, ‘Nicano-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntnis’, p. 454.

23 Joseph Lebon, ‘Les anciens symboles dans la définition de Chalcédoine’, RHE, 22 (1936), pp. 809–76. Kelly, Creeds, p. 298, agrees, citing also G. L. Dossetd, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Constantinopoli (Rome and Freiburg, 1967), pp. 296ff.

24 Diogenes of Cyzikos’ words are in ACO, II.1.1, p. 91, 11. 21–30.

25 Hall, Stuart G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London, 1991), pp. 232–3 Google Scholar.

26 Summary of developments and bibliography in K. M. George, ‘Oriental Orthodox-Orthodox Dialogue’, and Ronald G. Roberson, ‘Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue’, in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky and others (Geneva, 1991), pp. 757–61; Lilienfeld, Fairy von, ‘Orthodoxe Kirchen’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 25 (Berlin, 1995), pp. 423–64 Google Scholar.