What heresy was condemned at the council of chalcedon?
The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council, convened in 451 by Pulcheria and Marcian, empress and emperor of the East, to settle the scandal of the Robber Synod and to discuss Eutychianism (see Eutyches). It deposed the principals in the Robber Synod and destroyed the Eutychian party. Its great work, however, was its Definition regarding the nature and person of Jesus. Based upon the formulation given by Pope St. Leo I in his famous Tome to Flavian, it declared that, contrary to the view taken by Eutychianism (see Eutyches) and Monophysitism, the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures-one divine and one human. It was also proclaimed that these two natures exist inseparably in one person. This difference was a major factor in the Monophysite schism that divided the East for centuries. The council produced 28 disciplinary canons important for canon law in both the East and West. However, the Roman Catholic Church did not admit the 28th canon, which made the patriarch of Constantinople second only to the pope in Rome in precedence, until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). gatita Apostolic Believer In One God, Jesus
What was the Council of Chalcedon and Council of Ephesus?
Both of these councils concern the divine and human natures of Jesus.The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) was the ecumenical council where, after centuries of debate, the Christian church finally put forth its definitive statement of how Jesus’ divine and human natures interrelated. This statement, known as the Chalcedonian Definition, can be found here. To this day it is considered to be the orthodox explanation of Christ’s 2 natures by virtually all Christian churches.There were actually 3 Councils of Ephesus. The 1st and most famous (AD 431) is mostly known for condemning the teachings of a bishop named Nestorius concerning Christ’s 2 natures. Nestorius felt that any union between divine and human natures was impossible, and that therefore Jesus must have had 2 completely separate natures within him. One effect of this concept was that Nestorius taught the Virgin Mary actually only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, and therefore should not be called theotokos (“God-bearer”), as she had been back to the early days of the church, but only christotokos (“Christ-bearer”).The 1st Ephesian Council decided that Nestorius’ teaching was in error. As the Chalcedon Council would 20 years later, the theologians at Ephesus held that Jesus was a single, undivided human in whom divine and human natures are uniquely combined and unified without confusion.Nestorius was removed from his position as archbishop of Constantinople and eventually exiled to a monastery at El-Kharga in Egype. Nonetheless, groups of Nestorian Christians continue to exist to this day, particularly in Iran and Iraq.
Is Council of Chalcedon important in Christian history? Why?
It decided that Jesus Christ had to natures, God and man, but they were in one man and were not divided. This is the doctrine of most modern Christian denominations, but not in monophysitic churches like Coptic or Armenian. It was an attempt by the Roman emperor in Constantinople, Justinian I, to make Christianity a homogeneous faith.
How can we understand the Chalcedonian principle?
The Chalcedonian principle states that Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% Man and is united unconfused unmixed and unchanged. But the Council of Chalcedonian states that even they are united they did not form a mono nature like the Monophystism or MIaphytism. One can use the example of a chemical reaction. if we add chemical element A and chemical Element B and react it form Chemical C. But chemical C is not A or B is it is A+B add together bind by chemical bonds.likewise in genetics if you have you Father's genes and your Mother genes you form your new genes but you neither exactly your Father nor Mother but a new compound.That is Monophystism Therefore in the Chalcedonian principle a divinity and humanity of Jesus co-exsisted so perfectly that it was united but never formed a new mono nature it was rather a mixture. Because in a monature the end result is 100% therefore his divinity and humanity have to be 50% 50% each which is wrong because God is not in parts neither he is seperated against the heresy of Nestorian. yet at the same time through the Chalcednian principle the divine and human side of JEsus is 100% and 100% thus making it 200% and infinity and infinite God therefore Christ is 200% God and MAn
Why is Nestorianism seen as a form of Non-Chalcedonian Christianity when it was already deemed heretical in the Council of Ephesus 70 years earlier?
A couple of points here. First, they were condemned by both the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Council of Chalcedon(451). So one could call them Non-Ephesian Christians, but that doesn’t happen to be the term that has caught on. It is a 20 year gap, by the way. Secondly, it was after the Council of Chalcedon that the churches aligned with Nestorius broke off, and many of them moved further east.I suspect that you may be concerned with why they are discussed as Non-Chalcedonian Christians, rather than as Non-Chalcedonian or Non-Ephesian Heretics. This is largely a shift in how we now see things as historians. These people were following Jesus. They disagreed with the bulk of the church at that time over a rather technical difference in the understanding of the nature of Jesus. I am not going to say that the difference does not matter. But while the majority church at that time defined their beliefs as heretical, they continued to consider themselves as Christians, and spread quite widely.Historians of today consider them a form of Christianity, and generally do not take sides on the creedal debates in their roles as historians. That is not to say that they may not have personal theological opinions on these matters.There are many devout followers of Jesus today who could not clearly define their understanding of the exact nature of the Trinity in ways that are conform to the historical creeds of the Church. Particularly as a scholar of religion, I do not see that there is anything to be gained by defining these devout followers of Jesus as non-Christians.