Talk:Chalcedonian Christianity

message: This article seems, to me, to largely serve as a support article to the Council of Chalcedon, hypostatic union, and monophysitism.  As such, I tried to provide all the pertinent information, without duplicating everything on those pages.  I see no reason to "re-invent the wheel," and have directed links to where more in-depth info can be found for those who are interested. 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts. --Michael C. Price talk 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just added one tilde too many.  -- Pastordavid 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Import of this page

message: Are the majority of churches Chalcedonian? In my experience the majority of Protestant churches (which would also be the majority of overall churches, even if not the majority of Christians) don't recognize any of the great councils. Being "Chalcedonian" would seem to infer that one recognizes the Council of 451.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.184.155 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the majority of mainline protestant churches do accept the decrees of the first four ecumenical councils.  Add up Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist (I'm probably missing some in there), and you have the vast majority of the world's Christians. Pastordavid 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While it is true that many Protestants will not admit to allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon, it is the reality that the vast almost ALL Christians who did not break from the main body of the Church before the Council of Chalcedon will subscribe precisely to the Christology promoted at the Council. The only two major bodies who have traditionally not held entirely to Chalcedonian theology are the Assyrian Church of the East (which [rejecting even the Council of Ephesus] wavers on the side of emphasizing the twoness of Christ more than Chalcedon) and the Oriental Orthodox Church (which wavers on the side of emphasizing the oneness of Christ more than Chalcedon). Deusveritasest (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority Chalcedonian?

message: I just did a search for "Chalcedonianism" and found that there wasn't even an article under that name. I think it would be helpful to create an article by that name and simply have it redirect to this article. Does anyone here agree? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chalcedonianism" 

message: Does a person qualify as a Chalcedonian merely if they accept the Definition of the Faith offered at Chalcedon or must a person accept the Council wholesale, including the Tome of Leo, the deposition of Dioscorus, and finally the restoration of Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa? Deusveritasest (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Chalcedonian? 

message: This statement: "Those who held to the non-Chalcedonian Christologies called the doctrine of the hypostatic union dyophysite." at the end of the article is highly erroneous. The doctrine of the hypostatic union was really formulated by Cyril of Alexandria and confirmed at the Council of Ephesus, 20 years before Chalcedon. If anything, the Non-Chalcedonians viewed the doctrine of the hypostatic union as inherently Miaphysite and condemned the Chalcedonians for perverting that very doctrine. Thus to say that the Oriental Orthodox called the hypostatic union dyophysite is absurd and is showing a grievous misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the hypostatic union actually is. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypostatic union 

message: moved.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chalcedonian → Chalcedonian Christianity — "Chalcedonian" is an adjective, and according to our naming conventions, adjectives should redirect to nouns. Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The vast majority of systems of thought within Christianity do not take this form of "(adjective) Christianity" but rather take the form "(adjective)ism" or sometimes "(adjective) Church". Why should this article be the exception? I personally suggest that this article be moved to "Chalcedonianism". Deusveritasest (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalcedonian Christianity 

message: Reasons to doubt the neutrality of specific sentences are given in the hidden text. In general, the recent and highly debatable "discovery" that the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian division is basically meaningless is aggressively promoted as fact, despite the many centuries of struggles along these divisions. No source is cited for the claim that this opinion is prevalent in academia. See, on the other hand, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, 1971, pp. 133-143 for evidence of very real doctrinal differences, as an Indian Miaphysite theologian considers the Chalcedonian wording to be unacceptably evocative of Nestorianism, andthe 6th council  to have practically heretical implications.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: An encyclopedia article must, by definition, be readable by literate people who have no prior expertise in the subject they are looking up. This article, on the other hand, is gibberish to anyone who is not already a well-read scholar on the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not encyclopedic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chalcedonian Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619122112/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php to http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I unfortunately had to remove the majority of this page as it was almost entirely historical misinformation espoused by no one, not even the biased parties involved in the ongoing dispute about Chalcedon. I provided reasons in the edit summaries for each section I removed and if anyone has any questions as to why I removed a section, or desires that I prove that removal of such was appropriate, I ask that it be discussed here before blatant fiction is restored to what is meant to be an encyclopedic entry. A quick read-over of any credible source on the Council of Chalcedon and the results thereof will demonstrate that everything I changed and removed was not only justified but necessary, and I will be happy to demonstrate this with a multitude of unbiased resources should anyone seek to re-expand what has unfortunately by necessity become a stub article with the same misinformation I removed. Ysys9 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster page 

message: I would like to suggest that a more experienced editor than myself take a look at my edits, see that they were appropriate, and consider removing this page and making it a redirect to a page that covers the Council of Chalcedon. If deletion of the article is deemed inappropriate, please let me know via this talk page or on my own, and I will gladly rewrite the article. 
However, as it currently stands, this page is not very useful after the removal of the disinformation. It is merely a stub without much substance. 
I am not sure if re-writing or deletion is appropriate, which is why I appeal to more experienced editors than myself. Ysys9 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for deletion or complete rewrite of page